Theos-Talk Archives (April 2006 Message tt00237)

http://www.theosophycanada.com/fohat_AddressCriticsTJC.htm

I am posting a number of my observations on his book
and how he handles some of the evidence for the case.

Concerning the review of Pelletier's book by Brett Forray in 
THEOSOPHICAL HISTORY, April, 2005, pp. 14-23,
Forray shows quite clearly that the book is a very
ONE-SIDED account of the Judge Case in Judge's favor.
See Forray's numerous examples of this.

Although Pelletier's book is a treasure
trove of historical documents, it is unfortunate that
Pelletier left out so many other relevant documents. Again
see examples in Forray's review.

I noticed right away that Pelletier had NOT reprinted
Edmund Garrett's valuable booklet ISIS VERY MUCH UNVEILED. 

This is a source document of GREAT IMPORTANCE as it includes
FACSIMILES of many of the Mahatma Letters apparently
received through Judge. 

It is too bad that Pelletier did not ask one of his handwriting 
experts to compare a known sample of Judge's handwriting with one
of these above-mentioned Mahatma Letters to see if it is POSSIBLE
that Judge might have written one of the letters from the Masters.

The reprinting of this Garrett document would have been helpful to 
the reader who might want to carefully COMPARE the Garrett material 
with what BOTH Annie Besant wrote in her THE CASE AGAINST W.Q. JUDGE 
with Mr. Judge's rebuttals of Mrs. Besant's charges.  The Garrett 
book helps in this comparison.

I see that Pelletier has copied into his book from my website
the series of articles by H.N. Stokes on the Judge-Tingley
relationship but did NOT  include other extremely relevant documents
on my website, such as Judge's diary of Oct-Dec. 1894. This diary
throws a great deal of light on Judge's deposing of Mrs. Besant from
co-head of the E.S.T.

See the diary at:

http://blavatskyarchives.com/stokeswqjktdiary.htm

As I have read and carefully studied the narratives written by
Pelletier in this book I have come to the conclusion that Pelletier
employs (as much as Paul Johnson ever did) speculative possibilities
with little or no documentation whatsoever.

No doubt, Pelletier devoted hundreds if not thousands of hours to
collecting the documents reprinted in this volume and in doing the
extensive chronological survey and all students of Theosophical
history owe his a big thanks. But the above mentioned "gaps"
and "speculations" make the book less than useful especially to
students who may not know much about the subject but would like to
know more.

Daniel H. Caldwell
Blavatsky Study Center
http://hpb.cc