Theos-Talk Archives (November 2006 Message tt01066)

I do not support the publication of ?fake? letters of HPB (or anyone
else). However, a distinction must be made between ?fake? and
?questionable? or ?controversial?. ?Fake? presupposes incontrovertible
evidence of fraud: for example, if I produce a letter allegedly written by
HPB in Sydney in 1890 it would clearly be a ?fake?. The problem with
eliminating or not including letters in the ?questionable? or
?controversial? categories is that of criteria. Are they to be eliminated
on the basis of provenance (?X was a crook therefore any letters he
produced must be fakes?) or content (?HPB wouldn?t have written these
words?)? Both are methodologically unsatisfactory. Liars, thieves and
forgers sometime provide genuine material. Letter writers sometimes write
things that are atypical or contrary to their usual style or beliefs.
Therefore, I would argue that ?controversial? letters should be included,
but be identified as such and the reasons for the controversy outlined. I
note that lots of clearly genuine letters from Leadbeater were made
accessible by his most savage critics; the letters were not ?fakes?
because they were made accessible in an attempt to damage Leadbeater?s
reputation or by his self-declared enemies. The famous (or infamous)
?cipher letter?, with its strange sexual message to one of his male boy
pupils, is an excellent example. Leadbeater?s supporters (including
Besant) claimed it must be ?fake? because of its provenance (?His enemies
produced it?) and its content (?He would never have written such a
letter?). He never denied the genuineness of the letter (and,
interestingly, the cipher used is also used in one of his ?ghost stories?,
not written or published until more than five years after the ?cipher
letter?).

Dr Gregory Tillett