Theos-Talk Archives (November 1997 Message tt00279)

The Judge letters to HPB and Olcott that Olcott is referring to are
unpublished and are in the Adyar archives. Many historians over the
years have attempted to gain access to the letters without success. I
have five reasons why I don't believe that Olcott's statement is
correct, though he probably believed that he was telling the truth:

1. If the letters are as Olcott described, why has Adyar refused to
allow them to be published?

2. In 1931, Annie Besant published a long series of letters from Judge
to Olcott, that continued for the entire year. The series was concluded
with the comment:

 These letters were published with two objects: first to give new
matter to the historians of the
 Theosophical Society and Movement, who are many; second, to show how
futile is the attempt
 made by some Theosophical Organizations to dethrone Colonel
 Olcott from his rightful place by
 the side of H. P. Blavatsky and put in his place W. Q. Judge.
(Theosophist, Dec. 1931, p.
 308).

I have read these letters and found no complaints of his alleged
inability to get in touch with the Masters. However they were written
during a time when Judge was penniless, recently lost a child, and was
having severe marriage difficulties because his wife, a Methodist, was
not sympathetic to Theosophy. Therefore they are letters from a person
who was very human and at the lowest point in his life. Considering
the editor's stated objects for publishing these letters, it would have
been the opportune time to publish these alleged letters.

3. In 1895, Besant published and distributed to the entire membership an
88 page pamphlet entitled THE CASE AGAINST JUDGE. This pamphlet
specifies six charges against Judge, and states the argument that Olcott
echoes in OLD DAIRY LEAVES you have cited below. Besant supports her
argument by publishing short quotations from letters written by Judge to
various people. Most of these letters remain unpublished even today.
However, the letter to Damodar that she quotes has subsequently been
published in DAMODAR AND THE PIONEERS OF THE THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT. I
have checked the quote, and in my opinion, Besant had taken Judge's
statement out of context. Judge was not expressing his envy that
Damodar was in touch with the Masters and he wasn't but rather, Judge
was expressing his envy to Damodar for being in India, in the center of
the Theosophic action, while he was holding down the fort in America.
But Judge had also made similar statements to both HPB and Olcott, and
IMO proves nothing one way or the other about being in contact with
Masters.

4. In volume five of OLD DIARY LEAVES, Olcott says that Judge wrote a
letter to Besant with a Mahatmic warning for her not to go to India
because Olcott was planning to poison her. Edmund Garrett, who had
received copies of the evidence against Judge wrote a series of articles
for the WESTMINISTER GAZETTE. In this series he reproduces a facsimile
of the Mahatmic note in question. It reads: "I might tell him of your
`poison' interview with him. M " Garrett explains in depth how this
note was reinterpreted into the threat that Olcott states, but I will
leave that to read for yourself. The point is that this incident show
Olcott's ability to read far more into a letter than what is on the
surface. This magazine series was reprinted in a pamphlet entitled:
ISIS VERY MUCH UNVEILED BEING THE STORY OF THE GREAT MAHATMA HOAX.

5. The only living person I know of who has seen the Judge letters in
question is an independent Theosophical Historian named Michael Gomes.
I have questioned him extensively over a period of several years
concerning those letters, and he was clear to me that he did not find
the statements that Olcott claims to exist in those letters.

As I have stated in an earlier post, the Judge case is far more
complicated than any historical presentation of it so far published. To
follow only the point of view of Olcott, or Judge, or Besant will bring
nothing but a once sided understanding of the issues here. All of the
documents must be examined and considered within the greater historical
context of the TS at that time.

Another way of looking at the Judge case is to examine how the legal
procedure was carried out. Was Judge given his legal rights etc. Since
both Judge and Olcott were lawyers by profession, few people seem to
question this aspect of the case. But I have found some issues that
concern me deeply. First of all, Judge complained that he was not
permitted to see and was not given copies of the evidence that was being
used against him. Olcott replied in the THEOSOPHIST in 1895 that the
accused does not have the right to see or have copies of the evidence
against him. I find that an extraordinary statement from an American
lawyer. Though Judge was eventually permitted to see the evidence,
copies of it had already been made and distributed to the key TS members
in Europe. Thought these key members received copies gratis, Judge was
told that he would have to have the evidence transcribed at his own
expense. I think the implications are obvious and there is no need to
say more.

JJHE

David Green wrote:

> Thanks to all for commenting
> on my observation on Mr J and
> Mrs B.
>
> I have attempted to followup
> some of the items mentioned
> by Prof Campbell. He refers to
> Mr Olcott's book Old Diary
> Leaves V 144. My friend
> Mrs Miller loaned me a copy
> of 5th vol. I transcribe
> Mr O's words---
>
> The result arrived at was
> the getting together of a large
> number of Judge's private letters
> to HPB and myself in which he
> complains of his absolute inability
> to get into touch with the Masters
> and begs us to intervene on his
> behalf. Of course, this proved,
> beyond the shadow of a doubt, the
> falsity of the pretensions he
> had been making to his American
> colleagues and others, that he had
> been allied with those Personages
> many years and was doing what he
> did under their instructions and
> with their approval.
>
> Can one of the Theosophy experts
> provide me with some of these
> quotes from Mr J's letters.
> Is Mr Alcott lying?
>
> Dave