Theos-Talk Archives (October 2004 Message tt00099)

Ananda does not seem to understand the role of the scholar or the 
biographer (as distinct from the hagiographer). Neither writes to justify 
or apologize for, but to describe and analyze the evidence. Good 
scholarship seeks to make available previously unknown evidence, not 
simply to repeat what has already been published. Evidence is not 
judgment; different people will make different judgments based on the 
same evidence. It is not an exercise in accounting: one column of "good" 
and one column of "bad". In my biography of Leadbeater I present neither 
good nor bad about Leadbeater - merely the facts. I know of nothing 
"good" that I have omitted, and nothing "bad" that I have included 
gratuitously. That Leadbeater consistently lied about his past is 
critical to any assessment of his claims of supernatural powers since his 
credibility can be tested in the former matters, but not (uusually) in 
the latter by any standards methods of scholarship. If allegations of 
sexual abuse arose throughout his Theosophical career, these have to be 
addressed rather than (as in standard TS works) ignored or glossed over. 
This is not judgment: it's an attempt at explanation.
If I am asked questions about Leadbeater or other aspects of Theosophical 
history, I answer them directly as far as I can. If I am asked about, 
e.g., the fabricated birthdate it would surely be bizarre to add to my 
answer a list of Leadbeater's positive achievements!
Just what the 95% of "good" is in the case of Leadbeater I do not know, 
even if I saw it as my role to declare it.

Dr Gregory Tillett