Re: Theos-World Besant and Judge and HPB
Sep 06, 2003 04:49 AM
by Katinka Hesselink
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.
--- In email@example.com, "W. Dallas TenBreock"
> Sept 1 2002
> Re W Q JUDGE, accusations by Mrs. Besant, etc...
> Dear Katinka:
> Let me say this I have researched theosophical historical documents
> books, pamphlets, etc -- such as may be found in the several
> 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
> recorded by various persons, almost 100, or more years after the
> 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
> in letters written by Mr. Judge] WERE TRUE -- but.... But, she
> that the METHOD of WRITING or PRESENTATION was true. In effect, it
> averred that Mr. Judge had "forged" those messages. He denied this
> offered to prove that, but his offer was never accepted. History
> 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.
> was then explained, had to do with occultism ! -- and the exoteric
> of the TS and its membership, would never be able to understand or
> this fact, or the difference.
> What happened was that PRIVATE MESSAGES were being made public
> a violation of trust and a public confession of a loss of
> and, further horror, these purloined PRIVATE letters were copied
> made public. They were used as a basis for personal accusations
> the "postman," (Mr. Judge). There is (in my esteem) no excuse
> 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
> 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
> Judge be made Vice-President. Olcott had it done, and the General
> Council ratified this. She (Mrs. Besant) did so on the basis that
> acting as VICE-PRESIDENT. [Incidentally, did you notice that Mr.
> 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
> of his letters, as VICE-PRESIDENT -- but all his work and
> 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
> basis of insufficiency and inaccuracy. They would have to be
> 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
> as either an official or for himself, separate from that position.
> All accounts of the official Judiciary meetings in July 1894 show
> 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
> his associate Dr. J. D. Buck who accompanied him.
> The parties met in London and it was recognized that there was no
> for making any accusation against Mr. Judge as VICE-PRESIDENT. The
> changes were then dropped. A reconciliation was printed in LUCIFER
> 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
> given the documentary evidence), in apparent violation of that
> leaked these confidential matters to Garrett -- who wrote for the
> WESTMINSTER GAZETTE. That reopened the affair, made it public, and
> whole attack was prominently pursued. It was picked up again and
> renewed force it was directed at Judge personally. Members took
> The magazines were used as regular launching pads for opinions --
> 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.
> neither historical in accuracy, nor fair to either party.
> And at this time (in my opinion) it is useless to bring forward a
> set of opinions. If what you aver is true, then may we have a list
> synopsis of documents that support them. Dates, times, persons and
> places will have to be given sequentially, so others can verify
> WE ALL NEED TO READ THE FACTS.
> Best wishes,
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application