Theos-Talk Archives (August 2002 Message tt00012)

Hi Daniel,
What is flitting across my mind is that GRS Mead may have
been privy to plans which meant the withdrawal of the prospective Volume
III. If the existence of the manuscript for this were acknowledged, then
there may have been a clamour to have it published anyway, so Mead just
never mentioned it. In other words, it was deliberately suppressed, either
by HPB herself on instructions from a higher authority, or by someone else.
Mead was aware of this, but said nothing.

That seems to reconcile the fact that HPB said it was "entirely ready", and
Mead's failure to even mention it when, as her personal secretary for the
last two years of her life, and as a person who said he had worked with
everything she had written in English except Isis Unveiled, he must have
seen it if it were extant.

Do you have an alternative theory, Daniel, which reconciles Mead's failure
to mention it, and HPB's statement that it was "entirely ready" ?

Orra Best,
Ian
----- Original Message -----
From: "danielhcaldwell" <comments@blavatskyarchives.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 4:16 AM
Subject: Theos-World Ian and Dallas on G.R.S. Mead


> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>