Theos-Talk Archives (September 2005 Message tt00190)

Thursday, Dec. 30, 2004

To the Editorial Staff of FOHAT

In a recent review of the book titled "The Judge Case -
A Conspiracy Which Ruined the Theosophical Cause"
by Ernest Pelletier, Katinka Hesselink writes:

-----------------------------------------------
In his personal life Judge had been looking for
an occult successor for years. First for H.P.
Blavatsky, later perhaps for himself as his
health was not good. Appendix G (TJC part 2
p. 371-419) goes into the issue of the succession
of Judge by Katherine Tingley. Though, according
to the introduction to Appendix G the evidence
can go both ways, there is one piece of evidence
there that in my opinion can't be said to go both
ways. This is the letter to Archibald Keightley
(TJC part 2 p. 398 . . . ). Here he
says, 4 years after Blavatsky passed away, "Enclosed
is an exact transcript of what HPB said to me
Jan[uar]y 3."... "You can let all worthy & devoted
loyalists read this". Despite this the introduction
to appendix G says "The conclusion that Judge received
and accepted communications from the deceased H.P.B.
as genuine, may or may not be accurate". The compiler
makes no attempt to show the above mentioned letter as
itself a forgery, probably because ample testimony
exists that it is authentic. If Judge was an occult
teacher, why would he send such a message to his
followers with the implication that they should take
heart (the message from H.P.B. is positive towards
Judge and tells him that 'all will end for the good
of all') if he does not believe it is genuine? Obviously
he does believe H.P.B. was talking to him. If he was a
mere human, this isn't to be wondered at (#). He was in
dire straits and would have wondered what to do with
himself, the difficulties and the Theosophical Society.
That he would turn to mediums to tell him what to do is
not strange since the belief was current that sometimes
mediums brought messages from Mahatmas. Also it was
thought that mediums, if they left their mediumistic
talents alone for a bit, might turn into reliable
mediators for the Mahatmas at a later date when they
got full control over their powers, as H.P.B. herself
had done. Where he does cross the line of Blavatsky-based
theosophical practice is in assuming that H.P.B. would talk
through mediums after her death. She clearly stated
she wouldn't. (*) Easy as it is to say this in hindsight:
the message in question is an obvious case of a medium
(Tingley) telling a client exactly what they want to hear.
------------------------------------------------------
Quoted from:

http://blavatskyarchives.com/judgecasereviewbykatinka.htm

Apparently in response to the above observations,
an anonymous writer in an article titled "Doubts
and Doubters" (see FOHAT, Winter 2004, p. 91, footnote 3)
commented:

--------------------------------------------------------
There are two troubling letters from this time, one from
Judge to Archibald Keightley and a corroborative
letter from Judge to Katherine Tingley (see TJC 2, pp. 396-402
or O.E. Critic, Vol. 22, Nos. 3 & 4, also see
www.blavatskyarchives.com). With a possible mole
at the New York headquarters (Fullerton), both these
letters should be subject to professional handwriting
analysis. Both exhibit a very convincing facsimile of Judge's
handwriting, but is it his? With more and more evidence
weighing in Judge's favour, evidence such as this should be very
suspect and treated accordingly.
-------------------------------------------------------

Readers can see the transcriptions of the Judge letter
to Archibald Keightley and the other Judge letter to
Tingley on the following web pages:

http://blavatskyarchives.com/stokesjudge1495.htm

http://blavatskyarchives.com/stokesjudge1595.htm

The anonymous writer does not specify in the FOHAT
article why the two letters are "troubling" and does
not explain what is meant by the last sentence which
reads: "With more and more evidence weighing in
Judge's favour, evidence such as this should be very
suspect and treated accordingly." One can only try to
guess at what the writer's thinking on this subject
is all about.

I surmise that the FOHAT writer does not like
the idea that Judge might have believed he was in communication with
the deceased Blavatsky or that Judge might have been
obtaining such communications thru Mrs. Tingley. (???)

Anyway, the writer of this FOHAT article seems to be suggesting
that Alexander Fullerton ("a possible mole") may
have either forged these two letters in Judge's handwriting
or planted the forged letters at someone else's request.

But the anonymous writer does not give any details as
to when these letters were forged and planted or the
motivation for doing so, etc. Such vague speculation strikes
me as of the same character as much of the speculation
in K. Paul Johnson's three books on Blavatsky and the
Masters.

A side thought: If the letters were examined by a "handwriting
expert" and certified as genuine Judge, what would be the reaction of
the anonymous writer?

But I ask: Is there any OTHER evidence that would let
readers determine if the FOHAT speculation about the 2 Judge letters
is valid or not?

Consider below the extract quoted from
the E.S.T. Circular of April 3, 1896 which was issued
soon after Judge's death by the following Theosophists:

E.T. HARGROVE.
JAMES M. PRYSE.
JOSEPH H. FUSSELL.
H.T. PATTERSON.
CLAUDE FALLS WRIGHT.
GENEVIEVE LUDLOW GRISCOM.
C.A. GRISCOM, JR.
E. AUG. NERESHEIMER.

The extract reads:


---------------------------------------------------------

In a long message received by him [Judge] from H.P.B., extracts
from which were read at a general E.S.T. meeting in
New York about a year ago, these being at the same time
sent to the Advisory Council in London, there are some
important references to this chela:

"H.P.B., Jan. 3rd, 1895. Yours is not a bootless [?]
errand. You have nobly sustained our cause in the crisis.
Be encourage. Well did Master know the staunch fearless
attributes of your soul when he directed me to make you
leader of our craft in America. As the centre of our force
is attacked the more does our light work for the right.
Victory is ours. All will end for the good of all. Mistakes
have been made, but you have not gone far from the lines
laid down by Master. My desire is for you to be careful
about sending out Instructions to the E.S., for treacherous
and unworthy persons are within the gates, and all new ideas
will be appropriated by the other side after the split.

"Our dear chela, you have at last found your fellow chela,
who was one of ours years ago, consecrated to the work then,
and now by the Master's will brought face to face with you.
----- and ----- [signs representing the inner selves of H.P.B.
and "Promise"] is Raavais, linked with you in our work. As your
light shines into 'Promise's ' soul, fears will disappear as the
dew before the sun. Time will regulate all this.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Quoted from:
http://blavatskyarchives.com/stokesestapril96.htm


This extract in the April 1896 E.S.T. circular and the quoted words
of HPB refer back to material that is found in the document
that the FOHAT anonymous writer is suggesting
might be a forgery. Compare the above extract with Judge's letter
to Archibald Keightley and the accompanying transcript at:

http://blavatskyarchives.com/stokesjudge1495.htm

It would appear that in April 1896 some of Judge's close and
trusted associates were reminding all E.S.T. members of Judge's
School of what had been read "about a year ago" [early 1895] at
a general E.S.T. meeting in New York as well as being sent to
the Advisory Council in London.

Conclusion: This evidence indicates that the HPB quotations dated 
Jan. 3rd 1895 were known to a number of E.S.T. members and officials 
in both New York and London possibly as early as January 1895 (and 
as late as April or May 1895). That is, when Mr. Judge was alive and 
living in New York and conducting E.S.T. business. 

Another side thought: It was also in January 1895 that Mr. Judge 
issued Subsidiary Papers, No. B. See reprint of this paper in ECHOES 
OF THE ORIENT, Vol. III, pp. 465-472. See page 465 to see what E.S.T.
members were on the Advisory Council in London at this time.

Daniel H. Caldwell
BLAVATSKY STUDY CENTER
http://hpb.cc