Theos-Talk Archives (August 2001 Message tt00149)

Dear Daniel,

I don't know much about History or the history of the TS. I think, to my
loss, this is partly due to the fact that I don't have the right kind of
consciousness material in this incarnation that can retain factual
information of this kind. So the information I manage to put together from
whatever effort I put into this area is a bit like building sand castles
which are easily washed away by the gentlest of summer tides. So forgive me
if I'm asking questions about information that has already been addressed.

With regards the written instructions said to be by William Judge naming
Katherine Tingley as his successor - has anyone seen it beyond the original
group of 8 E.S.T members ie Hargrove, Pryse, Fussel, Neresheimer et al? Is
it still in existence? Is it one of the Judge documents that you have in
your possession?

What puzzles me a little is why there is so much attention given to what
Robert Crosbie may have said with regards Katherine Tingley. I can
understand someone speaking up in support of another at one point in their
work together and revising their view of them at a later date. It also
works in reverse - the poor view may be held in the beginning, the good view
acquired over time. I have done it myself (both ways).

The reason it puzzles me is that it appears key members of the original
group of 8 members of the E.S.T who originally endorsed Katherine Tingley
as the named successor to Judge ALSO changed there minds about her (as did
others like Alice Cleather) as well as later casting doubts on the existence
of any notes left by WQJ naming KT has his successor. Are those people (ie
Hargrove et al) also ULT people? If not then the question mark over
whether Judge appointed a successor is not a ULT or Robert Crosbie issue.
One needs to look more closely at the apparently conflicting statements and
accounts of that original group who claimed to have found those documents.
How would you see this?

Also, am I right in thinking that Robert Crosbie was not at that time
involved in the finding of those documents or the naming of the successor?

J. Fussell was one of that 'original group' of 8 (headed by Hargrove) in
the E.S.T., which had in its possession the papers and diaries belonging to
WQJ for some days before it made its announcement that Judge had left
directions for the esoteric School and had named a successor.

Shortly after the death of William Judge, this group of 8 announced on the
27th March 1896 there would be a "General Meeting of the E.S.T" to be held
on the 29th March.

On the next day, the 28th of March, Fussell writes to a correspondent in
New Zealand:

" ... as far as is present known W.Q.J left no directions in regard to
carrying on the work of the School. Of course if he had done this, such
directions will be followed."

In the same letter Fussell writes there had been an informal meeting of the
EST (namely the meeting on the 27th) where it was a proposed a Council
should be formed. This because, as explained in his letter, WJQ had left no
directions.

Yet, the very next day, the 29th March, at the "General Meeting of the
E.S.T", Fussell and others state that it was William Judge who left the
directions that there should be a Council formed. They also state that
WQJ had named a successor, but that the successor should remain unknown to
members for one year. This seems like a contradiction of Fussell's
statement in his letter written only the day before.

Did the relevant piece of information in Judge's notes spring to light over
night? Its possible, but is it probable? One would have thought if
William Judge had left deliberate directions to be followed after his death
then these would have been obvious to find among the papers in this groups
possession.. But who knows? And one has to ask, if a successor had been
named why the need for such a person to remain unknown to members of the
very group s/he was leading for one year?

Another factor that adds to the question mark over over this group's
statement on the 29th March is that we find Neresheimer (the executor of
Judge's will and one of the original group who took Judge 's papers)
writing years later in a sworn statement under oath that:

"Among all the papers and other documents left by Mr. Judge, we found
nothing whatever in his handwriting bearing upon the future conduct of the
society after his death. Nor did we find anything in his writing naming
Mrs. Tingley or anyone else, either directly or indirectly, as his successor
in the affairs of the Theosophical Society of America, or in its Esoteric
Section, or any directions of any kind to be followed in the even of his
death..."

This also fits in with what Hargrove (President of TS in A) wrote to
Katherine Tingley on Jan 30th 1898 stating:

"Now, my dear friend, you have made an awful mess of it - that is the simple
truth. You were run in as O.H. [Outer Head] as the only person in sight who
was ready to hand at the time. We were all of us heartily glad to welcome
you, for you solved the problem which confronted us. . . . Our enthusiasm
and anxiety to see all go well carried some of us too far - carried me too
far to the extent of . . . leading me to use my personal influence with
people to get them to accept you as O.H. I thought it was for the good of
the work but since then I have learned better."

In the above letter Hargrove appears to claim it was only through his
personal influence that Katherine Tingley was accepted as the successor to
William Judge. She was simply someone who was "ready to hand at the time."
Yet 2 years before, the group of 8 whom Hargrove led, were claiming the
successor was clearly and without doubt chosen by William Judge and they
were simply acting on his instructions.

What is one to make of all of this, Daniel? As far as I can tell the above
statements by Hargrove, Fussell and Neresheimer are a matter of written
record. I certainly don't have any answers as to their seemingly
contradictory statements. Nor do I feel I have enough information to come
to any conclusions. But it does appear to me that what went on between
that group of 8 members led by Hargrove is the real issue. What Robert
Crosbie may have later said about Katherine Tingley or what a ULT view
might be does not appear to me to be as relevant.

What do you think? I imagine you have already given plenty of thought to the
above.

all the best,

...Peter





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]