Theos-Talk Archives (August 2002 Message tt00009)

Ian wrote:

"Even at that stage HPB said, in 1888, that Volume III was 'entirely 
ready'. This was two and a half years before her death. The thing I 
find baffling is that GRS Mead, who was her personal secretary during 
the last two years of her life, made no mention of seeing the correct 
manuscript of Volume III. He states, as Daniel points out in his 
paper, that he has edited almost all of what HPB had written in 
English, with the exception of Isis Unveiled, but had never seen what 
was published as Volume III. One would have thought that if there was 
a Volume III extant at the time, which HPB said was 'entirely ready' 
in 1888, then Mead would have seen it. If this were the case why did
he not say that the Volume III which was published was not the 
correct one ?"

Later in the same email, Ian wrote:

"This [the story about A. Keightley helping HPB destroy her Volume 
III shortly before her death] would certainly explain a lot, but not 
Mead's lack of knowledge of the true Volume III manuscript. Unless 
Mead was himself privy to what had happened and was maintaining 
secrecy."

Dallas commented:

"It has been my suspicion for many years that G R S Mead exercised 
discretion and did not always say all he knew."

Ian replied to Dallas' comment:

"This would seem to be the only logical explanation of the dichotomy 
between HPB's statement that Vol III was 'entirely ready', and Mead's 
lack of reference to it."

Ian and Dallas, could one of you or both of you tell me exactly what 
you are trying to convey in the above statements?

I want to make a few comments but I want to be sure I understand the 
significance of your statements.

Daniel H. Caldwell
BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
http://blavatskyarchives.com/introduction.htm