Theos-Talk Archives (November 2006 Message tt00130)

Dear Friends, 
 
By 20 April 2006,  Gregory Tillett posted the text below in Theos-talk, on  the publication of the "HPB Letters" by the USA-TPH.  
 
As you will see, it strongly questions the Ethics of Mr. John Algeo?s editorial policies and accuses him of  making  ?a blatant, scandalous and bare-faced lie? in claiming not to have used John Cooper?s editorial work.  According to Tillett,  John Algeo also treated John Cooper?s widow  in ?an outrageous and despicable manner?.  
 
On the other hand,  Tillett  seems to defend the publication of false letters and libels in general, if they are  at least identified as ?doubtful? --  and discussed as such in the same volume.  
 
John Algeo didn?t do even such a clear identification in his volume of ?HPB Letters (false and authentic)?.  Algeo published the libels as if they had been written by H.P. Blavatsky, adding  some small,  hard-to-see notes admitting that they have ?poor legitimacy?. 
 
Twenty per cent of  the letters in this  USA-TPH volume are fake and libellous against the founder of the movement.  Joy Mills and  Daniel Caldwell were among the members of John Algeo?s ?Editorial Committee?.  As  to Joy,  she  probably just put her name in it as a way of showing a broad support;  but Daniel Caldweel seem to have been very active in it.  
 
Nicholas Week, another member of the Committee, had warned Algeo about the issue with no success. Such a warning most likely  made on behalf also of his wife Dara Eklund,  also a member of the Committee.  Dara corresponded with me on this issue and I admire and respect her honesty and good will.  
 
See Tillett?s message below. 
 
Best regards, Carlos Cardoso Aveline 
 
 
ooooooooooooooooo
 
[ Says Gregory Tillett: ] 
 
 
 I refer to the comment in a recent posting regarding the Blavatsky letters:
 
 ?After John Cooper died, John Algeo declared his contract with Cooper concerning the letters null and void. Whatever decisions John Algeo and his reformed  "committee" make concerning the publication of those letters, had nothing to  do with any previous agreements with Cooper, nor was Cooper's research included  in that volume.?
 
As John?s Literary Executive I am compelled to comment.
 
I will not give an account at this time of the outrageous and despicable manner in which Algeo dealt with John?s widow in the days and weeks after John?s  death. That is a story to be told one day, and I will tell it.
 
Algeo may have ?declared his contract with Cooper concerning the letters null and void? and to have proceeded accordingly. An easy, if immoral, position to take when dealing with a grieving and ill widow. Unfortunately for Algeo, the contract provided for rights which were inherited by John?s heirs which Algeo (even allowing that he may consider himself a higher authority than any court)  cannot simply dissolve. But he had the advantage of dealing with a distraught  and devastated family ? and of being able to ignore moral principles. He also  had the advantage of the substantial assets of the TS in America and of its attorneys with which to threaten a widow and her children.
 
The claim that John?s research was not included in the Algeo volume is ? let me  use plain language ? a blatant, scandalous and bare-faced lie. I have beside me  as I write (i) the Algeo volume, (ii) John?s PhD thesis on the Blavatsky letters  and (iii) a copy of the manuscript sent by John to the TPH before his death. If  I compare them I find sentence after sentence reproduced but for a word or two.
 Does anyone seriously believe that, between the time of John?s death and the  publication of the Algeo volume, the complete text was re-researched and  created anew? Including letters that John had discovered? Without any reliance on John?s work, Algeo or his puppets, acting independently, just happened to find the same material?
 
I note that the only condition put by John?s heirs on the use by the TPH of all  his material (including the first volume and everything else he had collected)  was that no changes would be made to John?s writing without prior consent. The  entire collection of John?s materials on the Blavatsky correspondence would  then have been provided to the TPH. This condition was obviously unacceptable.
 
The suggestion that John included ?fake? letters is ridiculous. John, as an historian, considered it important to include controversial, and possibly dubious, letters so that these could be considered and any impression that the correspondence had been ?censored? avoided. Contentious letters were, in John?s  work, clearly identified and the arguments for and against their origin considered. This is the approach of a scholar, rather than that of a ?true believer? or a hagiographer.
 
 All of John?s material is now accessible at the National Library of Australia.
 
 Dr Gregory Tillett
 
 
ooooooooooooooooooo
 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]