<< previous (§ IV)   |   home page   |   next (§ VI) >>


V. On discrepancies between different editions of Helena Roerich's letters

As we have seen, in a number of letters Helena Roerich expresses – on her own behalf or passing on the Words of Master M. – a very definite, sharply negative attitude towards Alice Bailey. Adherents of the latter, convinced that the "Tibetan" was a representative of the White Brotherhood, look for various ways to "circumvent" these clear and unambiguous statements. One of the explanations offered by them is that the letters of Helena Roerich in some publications are "falsified", i.e. they contain extraneous inserts that defame Alice Bailey. And this was done by the publishers of Helena Roerichs's letters, ostensibly in order to "discredit a competitor" – a teaching given by a "Tibetan".

What arguments do the proponents of the theory of "falsifications" give? Usually they offer to take texts from the Novosibirsk edition (1992) or Minsk edition (1992), both are 2-volume editions, and carefully, line by line, compare them with the texts of the so called "third"1 Novosibirsk volume (1993). The comparison does reveal discrepancies in the texts, and in the "third" volume there is a passage2 that is missing from the first two volumes; it tells about a certain dark society, the description of which is very similar (there is no direct indication of this) to the organization "Arcane School". This circumstance, according to the supporters of Alice Bailey, indicates artificial inserts in the original texts of Helena Roerich.

Such arguments may seem convincing only to those who either have not heard anything, or have a very vague idea of how, when and under what conditions Helena Roerichs's letters were printed in different years. Now, we offer a short historical reference, which removes the question of the reasons for discrepancies between different publications.

Until 1993 letters of Helena Roerich were published in Russian four times3:

1. The 2-volume book of 1940, published in Riga by the Latvian Roerich society4 – the first and only experience in the Soviet years of systematic publication of the epistolary heritage of Helena Roerich in Russian. Helena Roerich took an active part in the preparation of this collection. She selected letters for publication, shortened them, and made changes to the remaining fragments. Since the materials sent to Riga needed some revision, Helena Roerich granted one of the members of the Latvian society, Richard Rudzitis, the right to "make all the omissions, substitutions and corrections that he finds necessary”5. Nevertheless, the "trial" text (proofreading) typed in the Riga printing house was shown to Helena Roerich, she reviewed it, made her comments, and made a list of typos. As a result of all this preparatory process, the original texts have undergone significant changes and entered the book in a slightly reworked form. In particular:

(a) the addressees were not specified anywhere, only the dates of the letters were given;

(b) all names, with the exception of famous figures of history and culture, have been removed; instead, the text gives more streamlined nameless indications (for example, instead of the original phrase "Now about father John Shah."6 in the Riga edition there is "Now about a certain spiritual pastor"7);

(c) all or almost all country and city names were removed;

(d) all minor details, discussions of current affairs, etc. were also removed; individual phrases, whole sentences, or even paragraphs could be deleted; as a result, sometimes only a few edited fragments of a large letter could remain.

Many authors, who have addressed the history of the Riga edition, reported about this processing of texts with varying degrees of details, in particular: (1) N.K.Roerich8; (2) the editors of the 4-volume "Letters to America"9; (3) G.R.Rudzite – the daughter of Richard Rudzitis, who prepared the letters for printing10; (4) T.O.Knizhnik – the editor-compiler of the 9-volume "Letters", the most authoritative expert on the epistolary heritage of Helena Roerich11. The fact that the Riga collection includes only fragments of letters is explicitly stated in its Preface12; this is also stated in the Preface to the English-language edition of the collection, the first volume of which was published in 1954, during the lifetime of Helena Roerich13.

Published in Riga, the 2-volume book was sent to India and received the highest appreciation of Helena Roerich.

Why did you need such a serious reworking of the original texts? The answer to this question is unknown to us, we can only speculate. Apparently, the main task of the collection was to explain the essence of ethical and philosophical problems of the Living Ethics, and for this purpose it was not necessary to know the names of people, organizations and countries mentioned in the original text. They could be withdrawn both for reasons of privacy, and because of complex (not always obvious to us) everyday, political and karmic entanglements.

2-3. A pair of 2-volume books – the Novosibirsk edition (1992)14 and the Minsk edition (1992)15. It appeared at the dawn of transparency and freedom of the press, when many Roerich societies in the former Soviet republics began actively publishing materials related to the Roerichs. Among the important initiatives that were being promoted at that time was the reissue of the Riga collection of 1940, because there were no other significant Russian-language publications of Helena Roerich's letters at that time. Simultaneously released in 1992, these 2-volumes books were reprints of old Riga edition and contained the same banknotes and the same "depersonalization".

4. An additional volume that was published in Novosibirsk in 199316. The design of this volume (format, cover, font, etc.) repeated the 2-volume Novosibirsk edition published a year earlier. In fact, this was its continuation, although the "Volume 3" is not marked in the publication. Nevertheless, some authors, without delving into the bibliographic details, call this book "the third volume", and the entire Novosibirsk series of 1992–1993 – "3-volume edition". This supplementary volume includes various letters of Helena Roerich for 1932–1955; some of them, usually in a different edition, are found in the first two volumes. Here is what is written in the Preface to the "third" volume: "While reserving the principles of formation and publication of previous volumes, published, as we know, under the supervision of the author of letters, we have in this volume to a much greater extent preserved the theme of personal relationships between E[lena] I[vanovna] [i.e. Helena Roerich] and its addressees; in this sense, there are much fewer omitted fragments than in previous volumes”17. In other words, the publishers, deprived of the opportunity to consult with Helena Roerich, took a responsible approach to the matter and did not edit the text much and printed the texts of the letters almost as they are. Thus, deleted fragments are also available in this edition, although, as some comparisons show17a, they are much smaller.

After 1993, the letters of Helena Roerich were published in large numbers by various publishers. Almost every year, both individual letters and entire collections are published. In 1999, the publication of Helena Roerich's letters from the archive of the International Center of the Roerich (Moscow) was started. They are given without abbreviations, are repeatedly checked with the originals, and are provided with textual and scientific comments. Now 9 volumes of correspondence of Helena Roerich for 1919–1955 have been published18, and relatively recently the second edition of the first19 and second20 volumes has already appeared, and the following volumes are expected to be reprinted.

As a result, if we take any letter dated the same date from the Riga (or Minsk, or Novosibirsk) 2-volume edition [version 1], from the "third" Novosibirsk volume [version 2] and from the 9-volume edition of International Center of the Roerichs [version 3], we will find quite expected discrepancies. Namely, version 1 will be the most concise, "impersonal" and poor in details; version 2 will be more informative; and version 3 will be the most complete of all. However, these differences are due to different approaches of publishers to reducing and, to a lesser extent, to "smoothing" the texts of Helena Roerich. But we do not know the facts that her letters were misrepresented by meaningful inserts.

******

Even without being familiar with the listed facts, a person who adheres to the version about the allegedly purposeful forgery of Helena Roerich's letters in the "third" Novosibirsk volume will face a number of inconsistencies.

1. In the Novosibirsk "3-volume book" the name of Alice Bailey is clearly mentioned in a single letter (dated January 7, 1937), in passing and without any assessment. The "Arcane School" is clearly mentioned only once (letter dated February 17, 1934): there Helena Roerich states the fact that the books of Agni Yoga are studied in this organization. And the traditionally discussed – allegedly artificially inserted – passage about the dark society in America (letter of August 23, 1934) does not contain any explicit references to the "Arcane School". How does all this fit in with the alleged intent of the publishers to "defame" Alice Bailey?

2. Further, Helena Roerich repeatedly wrote that in addition to her there were, there are and will be various channels for transmitting Secret Knowledge, that the White Brotherhood is constantly searching for new receivers of Teaching and cannot limit itself to a single messenger. Moreover, Helena Roerich pointed, for example, to "The Temple of People" – a fairly large American society that simultaneously received instructions from Great Masters. All these are facts that are well known to followers of the Living Ethics and, what is noteworthy, are touched upon in the Novosibirsk "3-volume book" under discussion (see, for example, the letters of February 17, 1934 and January 7, 1937). What is the point of Novosibirsk publishers of Roerichs’ texts in "denigrating" this or that supposedly "competing" teaching?

3. If the Novosibirsk publishers decided to fake the letters of Helena Roerich, then now, after more than 25 years, after so many Internet debates, "splits", etc., some evidence would inevitably "pop up": for example, the memories of participants or eyewitnesses of these alleged falsifications, scanned copies of the corresponding letters, where these allegedly inserted fragments are missing, etc. Why don't we see such things? Where are they, the witnesses of these long-ago events?

4. The Roerich movement is not homogeneous. Both individuals and various organizations closely monitor the activities of colleagues and jealously point out any shortcomings, detractions or distortions. There are a number of fairly qualified publishing groups that produce works of the Roerichs and literature about the Roerichs. Why have conversations about alleged "fakes" in the Novosibirsk edition never been conducted at the level of professional publishers, who are usually quite demanding of printed products?


Notes:
1 Why the word "third" and "3-volume" are taken in quotation marks, is explained below.
2 Letter of August 23, 1934.
3 We do not take into account occasional publications containing one or more separate letters of Helena Roerich that took place before 1992. See: Елена Ивановна Рерих: Биобиблиографический указатель. К 130-летию со дня рождения / Сост. Н.К.Воробьева; краткий биогр. очерк Т.О.Книжник. М.: МЦР, Мастер-Банк, 2009. С. 20–25.
4 Письма Елены Рерих. 1929–1938. В 2 т. Riga: Uguns, 1940.
5 Е.И.Рерих – Р.Я.Рудзитису и Г.Ф.Лукину от 31 декабря 1938 года // Рерих Е.И. Письма. Т. 6. М.: МЦР, 2006. С. 300.
6 Е.И.Рерих – В.Е.Гущику от 2 июня 1934 года // Рерих Е.И. Письма. Т. 2. М.: МЦР, 2000. С. 139.
7 Письмо от 2 июня 1934 года // Письма Елены Рерих. 1929–1938. Riga: Uguns, 1940. Т. 1. С. 255.
8 Рерих Н.К. Письма Елены Ивановны // Рерих Н.К. Листы дневника. Т. 2. 2-е изд. М.: МЦР, 2000. С. 289–290.
9 От редакции // Рерих Е.И. Письма в Америку. Т. 1. М.: Сфера, 1996. С. 32–34.
10 Рудзите Г. «Словно цветущую ветвь внесли в комнату...» // Письма с гор: Переписка Елены и Николая Рерих с Рихардом Рудзитисом. Т. 1 / Вступ. ст., примеч. и коммент. Г.Рудзите. Минск: Лотаць, 2000. С. 11–12.
11 Книжник Т.О. Творящая во благо человечества // Рерих Е.И. Письма. Т. 1. 2-е изд., испр. и доп. / Ред.-сост., предисл. и примеч. Т.О.Книжник. М.: МЦР, 2011. С. 21–22.
12 Письма Елены Рерих. 1929–1938. В 2 т. Т. 1. Riga: Uguns, 1940. С. 7.
13 Letters of Helena Roerich. 1929–1938. Vol. 1. New York: Agni Yoga Society Inc., 1954. P. XXIX.
14 Письма Елены Рерих: 1929–1938. В 2 т. Новосибирск: Изд-во «ВИКО»; «АЛГИМ»; Т.О.О. «АУРА», 1992.
15 Письма Елены Рерих: 1929–1938. В 2 т. Минск: Белорусский фонд Рерихов, ПРАМЕБ, 1992.
16 Письма Елены Рерих: 1932–1955. Новосибирск: Изд-во «ВИКО»; Предпр-е «АЛГИМ», 1993.
17 Письма Елены Рерих: 1932–1955. Новосибирск: Изд-во «ВИКО»; Предпр-е «АЛГИМ», 1993. С. 3.
17a See, for example, the comparison of the original text of the letter of Helena Roerich of August 23, 1934 (1) with the same letter in the Riga edition, (2) with the same letter in the "third" volume of the Novosibirsk "3-volume book".
18 Рерих Е.И. Письма. В 9 т. М.: МЦР, 1999–2009.
19 Рерих Е.И. Письма. Т. 1. 2-е изд., испр. и доп. / Ред.-сост., предисл., примеч. Т.О.Книжник. М.: МЦР; Благотворительный Фонд им. Е.И.Рерих; Мастер-Банк, 2011.
20 Рерих Е.И. Письма. Т. 2. 2-е изд., испр. и доп. / Ред.-сост., примеч. Т.О.Книжник. М.: МЦР; Благотворительный Фонд им. Е.И.Рерих; Мастер-Банк, 2013.