Theos-Talk Archives (April 2006 Message tt00420)

Carlos,

You have such a limited vocabulary...   :)

Aren't you curious about this letter given
in facsimile?

It may or may not have some relevance to
the Judge controversy.  I don't know.

But it is interesting that this supposed
Mahatma letter surfaced in 1890 or before.

Where did it come from? 

Also interesting that Coues is apparently trying
to attribute it to Judge.  I wonder if Besant
or Olcott was aware of this at this time or maybe later. 

And notice HPB's letter to Coues in 1889, she
is defending Judge.   Is that slanderous gossip too???

Daniel

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "carlosaveline" 
<carlosaveline@...> wrote:
>
> 
> Dear Friends,
> 
> More slanderous gossips and lies over one hundred years old.  
> 
> Carlos. 
> 
> 
> 
> De:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> 
> Para:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> 
> Cópia:
> 
> Data:Thu, 20 Apr 2006 17:46:46 -0000
> 
> Assunto:Theos-World How did Coues have possession of this Mahatma 
Letter in 1890 or before?
> 
> > It would appear that as early as July 1890 
> > William Judge was accused of writing [forging]
> > Mahatma Letters.
> > 
> > Elliott Coues in The Sun (a major New York newspaper) 
> > on Sunday, July 20, 1890 (p. 17) was apparently
> > asked the following question:
> > 
> > "How about those 'Mahatmic' letters we heard so much about a 
while 
> > ago, such a one, for example, as the Chicago Tribune published 
in 
> > fac-simile?" asked the reporter.
> > 
> > Coues is reported as replying:
> > 
> > "Oh, you mean those Aids to Faith in Blavatsky which went the 
> > rounds? Here are a couple. They are at your service if you wish 
to 
> > print them. You see the envelope is a long narrow one made of 
thin, 
> > rough paper such as is commonly used in the East and stamped 
with 
> > some characters like those on a Chinese tea chest. The rice 
writing 
> > paper is heavy, with a smooth glaze, and has or did have a faint 
> > odor of sandal wood. The large red blotch on one of them I 
believe 
> > is simply the maker's or dealer's mark, but do not know. The wax 
> > seal on the other is the monogram of finger ring which once 
> > Blavatsky loudly protested in the columns of London Light, she 
alone 
> > possessed but of which Judge has a duplicate or a good 
imitation. 
> > The subject of the communication is simply bosh, as you 
perceive; 
> > the handwriting is almost unquestionably that of Mr. Judge, who 
is 
> > an expert penman." 
> > 
> > The 2 letters mentioned were reproduced in the "Sun" article. 
You 
> > can see the facsimiles at:
> > 
> > http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/coumah.htm
> > 
> > Some might be interested to compare the handwriting of the first 
> > letter given here with the facsimiles of later letters disputed 
> > after HPB's death and published in the Garrett book. See some 
> > reproductions in Pelletier's book on pages 358 and 356.
> > 
> > It would be interesting to have a documents expert compare the 
> > handwriting of the first letter [that Coues mentions] as given 
in 
> > the SUN article with the letter given in facsimile in Pelletier 
p. 
> > 358.
> > 
> > How did Coues receive the first letter given in facsimile at:
> > http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/coumah.htm
> > 
> > Did he receive it from Judge or from HPB or .....?
> > 
> > One important fact to keep in mind is that this letter surfaced 
> > during the lifetime of HPB and was apparently in Coues 
possession 
> > prior to July 20, 1890.
> > 
> > I wonder if Judge or HPB mentioned this letter in any of their 
> > letters in 1890 or 1891 before HPB died.
> > 
> > Daniel
> > http://hpb.cc
>