A Letter to Blavatsky

The archives at the international theosophical headquarters in Adyar India, former home of Colonel
Olcott and Blavatsky, are formally devided in two parts, one general and the other related to the esoteric
section.
However very few people receive access, and in most cases the excuse is used that since there is no librarian
momentarily (since many years) no access can be granted.
This is unfortunate, because the adyar archives contain very valuable material for researchers. Concerning
my own visit I must say that the residents and persons in charge in Adyar are friendly. I did not research
all of the Archives, the letter below however is indeed an unpublished letter from the esoteric section part
of the archives.

Burton Lane, Withington, Manchester

January 2, 1878.

My dear Madam,

I am greatly obliged to you for the amount of information in yours of the 19th ultimo. I fear I shall be
too troublesome to you at present, and hope you will forgive me. I sent by registered book post today
(enclosing also a cutting from 'Public Opinion' reviewing ISIS UNVEILED) the rough draft of a
paper for some future edition of my 'Spec. Freemasonry'. My object in sending you this is to show
you by a comparison, how nearly my spiritualistic enquiries correspond to your own, whilst
altogether opposed to our own education; and you may judge from this how highly I must value your
book as an authority. The first part of the chapter is formed from extracts from your book; and if I
have not fairly comprehended your theories or have omitted any important point, kindly jot down on
the blank page and return me the paper.

I should be delighted to see you personally, but fear I might not find it convenient to go to London.
You will most likely come to Liverpool by either the Cunard or Inman Line. If it is 4 or 6 months
hence, there will be a new line---the most direct to London (via Withington and Stockport) will
almost pass my door, and I should be glad to have you here for a few days. If the New Line is not
then open we are only 4½ miles (by omnibus) from Manchester, and you could send on your luggage
to London and run up to us. If my life is spared we may hereafter be of use to each other in
developing the truths of the East and West.

I will adopt your revised Ceremonies and am much obliged for the trouble you are giving yourself.
The position I am debating is whether there should be two sets of ceremonies of the 7°---perfected
and unperfected, or only one with a lecture upon perfection, giving a comparison between Eastern
and Western Masonry. This you must kindly settle for me.

I wish to advance 3 objects---1. Censorial (with the 7 imperfect ceremonies, 4 of which I sent you), 2.
Perfection (giving the gist of the Vedic doctrine), 3. For a select few, the division of the 7 grades
according to the dogma of the East. Or would you make two branches---1. the Censorial 7 rites, and
2. the ceremony of Perfection, ranking as the first Eastern grade, Censor the second, and Sponsor
the third? Kindly suggest what we should do. The two classes of females would be found in the
Perfect and Imperfect. I have no confidence in following anything that is done here. I am of opinion
that what I have sent you is compiled by Capt. Archer, from memory of what the 7 Sat Bhai of Prag
(English officers) were taught by the Brahminical pundit Antiram of the family of Chowbi of
Benares. They know only imperfectly what he taught.

A.& P. Rite. I should like to know what Gotheran has got to do with my granting you a Patent of
Adoptive Masonry, our appanage of the Rite? If you want the Ritual you will have to get that of
"Ragon" in Paris, perhaps 2 francs. The Patent legalises what you will get there and ought to admit
anywhere to any lodge of "Adoptive" Masonry. English Masons are dead against it here and
therefore its introduction requires great caution. Sotheran wrote me about Levi's Patent and I
thought I had scattered its atoms to the four winds of heaven, but it seems I am mistaken. They are
merely trying to delude you with wordy subtleties, and this will necessitate my letting you into a
secret in strict confidence. Sotheran is not in good standing in the Rite here, and therefore not in
America. He therefore wishes to set up a spurious counterpoise. Marconis was in New York in 1856
and started the 32°-96°, and whatever the Grand Orient may have said they vised and sealed
Seymour's Patent in the same year, and all their Annals down to 1866 (when America broke off
relations with the Grand Orient) acknowledge Seymour as C.M. with appointment of mutual
representatives. Whoever says different to this is a liar, probably wilfully so. In the face of this it does
not matter a button whether Majnon's signature was forged or not, but the evidence is negative, and
I do not believe it. Levi's charter has never been heard of till now, is perhaps a forgery and certainly
a spurious document, for it was his duty to have carried it under the lawfully established Gov. Sanc.
Down to the present time the legality of Seymour's Gov. Sanc. has never been disputed by anyone, it
has been regularly acknowledged by the Grand Orient and reference to it is to be found in Marconis'
printed books. Who then will believe a word these schemers say? The want of progress both here and
in America is caused by the strong opposition the Rite has to encounter in the infamous, swindling,
lunatic humbug---the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite.

I send you by this post a small pamphlet giving a full and accurate history of the Rite, and as far as I
know every word is true. I knew Sotheran very well here, he told me once that his grandmother had
negro blood. He is a man of very good ability in his business, that of a publisher or publisher's
assistant, and as such I respect him. Outside that he would have a difficulty in giving one point of
resemblance between us, for we are wide as the poles. He is very good-natured and willing to assist
in his line, and he is therefore entitled to mutual consideration from those who can give it, but I am
sorry to hear that in many respects he maintains his character here---evidently we shall quite agree
on this point.

I have never met Mackenzie personally, he is a nephew of John Hervey, the Gd. Sec. of the Gr.
Lodge, partly dependent upon him, and has the character of being somewhat of a Bacchanalian. He
is a member of the Swedenborgian Society and makes a very good Grand Sec. of the Swed. Rite
(which progresses). I have only fault to find with him and that is, that like all Scotchmen he is
opinionated, and perhaps he is too sly and diplomatic for my open character. He is a learned and
liberal man and given to astrology and occult matters.

By Yama (a mistake) you mean I think Capt. Archer. He was sometime resident in Manchester, and I
made his acquaintance here through Prince Rhodocanakis. He is in poor circumstances thus---his
half captain's pay may clear him perhaps £100, of this £80 a year was settled upon four children
resident in Edinburgh by his first wife, whilst he married again (a young wife) upon the remaining
£20 or £30 a year and has, in delicate health with a bad liver brought from India, to eke out a
livelihood by writing for the papers. He is a polished man, also crochety, who seems to surrender his
point only to attack it in another mode with Scotch pertinacity. Always polite, he is always in
antagonism, and hence has no friends. If he has any faith, I fancy it is Brahminism, but he is too
cautious to let anyone know what he really thinks. He seems to write a nice but a vague style and
hence 1 doubt his profundity.

I only know Stainton Moses from his papers in the "Spiritualist" and from one or two letters I had
from him through Capt. Ruris of Bristol (a great collector of Occult literature). S.M. would be of use
to you from his relations with the Spiritualists (of which I am not one---as a sect). I have noticed that
his mediumistic powers often elicited matter explanatory of my own obtainings and proved the truth
of both, but as to style and matter I form the same opinion of him as of Archer.

Sometime when you see Hyneman, will you ask him who was the Piat mentioned in some of
Marconis' letters. Piot published a diagram of the degree of Master of Masters from the symbolic
'Orient of Memphis' in 1876--- are they the same man? I am obliged to Hyneman for the good
opinion which you say he holds of me.

You did not answer my enquiries as to Eastern and Western Masonry and it confirms my previous
opinion; viz., that there is no immediate relationship between them, and only a very remote
derivation.

In speaking of Apex as our 'Abstraction' the term was used only in the same way that we may say
God is our 'abstraction'---the term was not happy. The Censors are now engaged in adopting an
organised working and anything you can offer me in the way of suggestion will be highly valued, and
I will do my best to have them adopted. I am now insisting that the Mandate shall convey power (as
a charter) to each brother to hold meetings of his seven, to receive, and to adopt resolutions for the
good of Masonry and the Sat Bhai, and forward for the consideration of the Censors--to act upon as
they think necessary. This will, if carried out, give us eventually power.

We sent the Maharajah of Burdwan a Mandate with a complimentary letter, but he did not reply.
Archer had formerly dined with him once or twice when in India. I am greatly obliged and interested
by the many excellent remarks you offer me. Some of them ought to be embodied in the Ceremonials,
but I do not feel myself competent to aid in drawing them.

Remember me kindly and respectfully to Col. Olcott, and wishing you, he and all the members of the
Theosophical Society a happy and prosperous New Year,

I remain,

Ever sincerely yours,

John Yarker.

Me. H.P. Blavatsky,

New York.