Theos-Talk Archives (September 2003 Message tt00027)

Hi Dallas,

I know the issue of the Judge case is one which is dirty on both 
sides. My only statement of opinion here is: the dirt wasn't only on 
Besant's side. I agree that Old should not have made the documents in 
question public. What I disagree with though is the persistent 
tendency to blame Besant and Olcott, and exonerate Judge totally. 

It may be so that Judge did not act as president when writing those 
letters - but that is really a technicality. I mean, what a president 
does is always under scrutiny, rightly so, whether 'off the bench or 
on it'. Especially when one is co-head of an institution like the 
E.S. If he made those letters up, then his whole ethical soundness is 
under fire. And that really had to be adressed by Besant and Olcott. 
How could they not adress it? The problem is though, the real issue 
can't be decided, namely, were those letters really inspired by the 
Masters... And that was the technicality he got off on, the way the 
story is usually told. 

My point isn't that Judge was wrong. I don't know whether he was or 
not. My point is that Besant wasn't as wrong as she has often been 
painted to be. 

Are you really saying that one can only have on opinion on a subject 
when one has studied the original documents? We could just stop this 
whole e-mailgroup then. 

Anyhow, Wachtmeister's words are part of the evidence. You just don't 
like that evidence. 

Katinka

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "W. Dallas TenBreock" 
<dalval14@e...> wrote:
> Sept 1 2002
> 
> 
> Re W Q JUDGE, accusations by Mrs. Besant, etc...
> 
> 
> Dear Katinka:
> 
> Let me say this I have researched theosophical historical documents 
and
> books, pamphlets, etc -- such as may be found in the several 
archives
> of the various societies, etc., for over 50 years. I have made an
> almost complete set of copies thereof. Several students have
> independently produced a list of all the known papers and statements
> relating thereto, have checked and re-checked them for accuracy, and
> have arranged them chronologically. They do not need to deal in
> opinions, but can trace every move recorded, and word printed.
> 
> Since we deal now a days with the versions of Theosophical history 
as
> recorded by various persons, almost 100, or more years after the 
events,
> we cannot go into that with any prejudgments.
> 
> You will note that the conflict arose because Mrs. Besant said that
> while the Master's "messages" [sent to specific individuals and 
included
> in letters written by Mr. Judge] WERE TRUE -- but.... But, she 
denied
> that the METHOD of WRITING or PRESENTATION was true. In effect, it 
was
> averred that Mr. Judge had "forged" those messages. He denied this 
and
> offered to prove that, but his offer was never accepted. History 
does
> not say why.
> 
> This sounds very strange.
> 
> TRUE AS MASTER'S MESSAGES (she admitted) -- but untrue in method and
> manner of delivery? Of course everyone was (and still is) confused.
> Further, they were "sailing in unchartered waters," so to say. 
This, it
> was then explained, had to do with occultism ! -- and the exoteric 
world
> of the TS and its membership, would never be able to understand or 
grasp
> this fact, or the difference.
> 
> What happened was that PRIVATE MESSAGES were being made public 
[this is
> a violation of trust and a public confession of a loss of 
integrity]
> and, further horror, these purloined PRIVATE letters were copied 
and
> made public. They were used as a basis for personal accusations 
against
> the "postman," (Mr. Judge). There is (in my esteem) no excuse 
(then or
> now) for such a violation of integrity. None.
> 
> As a writer, and to be honest and true, I have to draw conclusions
> independent of what anyone says, hence, I go to the DOCUMENTS. I 
can
> trace there the course of events -- I can see "who did what."
> 
> On that basis, trying to be fair and impartial I write.
> 
> As far as I can gather, it was Mrs. Besant who late in 1893 started
> accusations against Mr. Judge, as VICE-PRESIDENT of the TS. You may
> remember that earlier, the Masters though H P B, had demanded that 
Mr.
> Judge be made Vice-President. Olcott had it done, and the General
> Council ratified this. She (Mrs. Besant) did so on the basis that 
he was
> acting as VICE-PRESIDENT. [Incidentally, did you notice that Mr. 
Judge
> gave Col. Olcott warning ahead of time that the chosen course was
> faulty, and would fail? ]
> 
> His (Mr. Judge's) response was that he never acted, in the 
transmission
> of his letters, as VICE-PRESIDENT -- but all his work and 
correspondence
> had been done ONLY AS AN INDIVIDUAL. And this was proved. 
> 
> [See TWO REPLIES BY W. Q. JUDGE Pub.: Theosophy Company, Los
> Angeles. ]
> 
> The accusations considered in July 1894 in London, were defeated on 
the
> basis of insufficiency and inaccuracy. They would have to be 
rewritten
> if they were to be levied against him personally. Mrs. Besant then
> declared herself satisfied This fact was recognized. Yes, it is a
> technicality. But it is a most important one. An individual could 
act
> as either an official or for himself, separate from that position.
> 
> All accounts of the official Judiciary meetings in July 1894 show 
that
> at that time, Mr. Judge was not given a fair chance to view the
> evidence, either before or after the meetings. He protested and so 
did
> his associate Dr. J. D. Buck who accompanied him.
> 
> The parties met in London and it was recognized that there was no 
basis
> for making any accusation against Mr. Judge as VICE-PRESIDENT. The
> changes were then dropped. A reconciliation was printed in LUCIFER 
and
> made public. Mr. Judge was exonerated and officially restored to the
> position of Vice-President.
> 
> A few moths later we find that Mr. Olds (to whose trust Col. Olcott 
had
> given the documentary evidence), in apparent violation of that 
trust,
> leaked these confidential matters to Garrett -- who wrote for the
> WESTMINSTER GAZETTE. That reopened the affair, made it public, and 
the
> whole attack was prominently pursued. It was picked up again and 
with
> renewed force it was directed at Judge personally. Members took 
sides.
> The magazines were used as regular launching pads for opinions -- 
most
> of which were not accurate or ill-based.
> 
> THE PAPERS AND RECORDS ARE THERE TO BE READ.
> 
> If one does not read them, then one has only opinions to offer. 
That is
> neither historical in accuracy, nor fair to either party. 
> 
> And at this time (in my opinion) it is useless to bring forward a 
fresh
> set of opinions. If what you aver is true, then may we have a list 
and
> synopsis of documents that support them. Dates, times, persons and
> places will have to be given sequentially, so others can verify 
them.
> 
> WE ALL NEED TO READ THE FACTS.
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Dallas.
>