Theos-Talk Archives (November 2006 Message tt01397)

Dr. H.N. Stokes, editor of THE O.E. LIBRARY CRITIC and a foremost 
critic of Leadbeater and Besant, wrote the following about the book 
Mr. Carlos Aveline has such a high opinion of:

===========================================================
The United Lodge of Theosophists' anonymous book, The Theosophical 
Movement [1925 edition] . . . will not tolerate even the suggestion 
that Judge claimed to have had communications from the dead H.P.B. or 
that he was on intimate terms with Mrs. Tingley. . . . 

[This 1925 book] spends pages in trying to prove that eight members 
of the New York E.S.T. of hitherto unblemished reputations, and 
several of them close associates of Judge, were either knaves [tricky 
deceitful fellows] or fools. . . . 

. . . [But] we have the indisputable evidence in Judge's handwriting:

1.  That he received a series of communications which he accepted as 
coming from H.P.B.

2.  That in these communications a person designated as "X" or "13" 
was spoken of in high terms by H.P.B., and who is proved to be Mrs. 
Tingley.

3.  That Judge copied these loose scratch pad sheets or memoranda 
either into a diary or in some other form, making slight 
corrections.  This - not the original memoranda - was quoted by 
Hargrove, and a portion copied and sent to Dr. Keightley. . . . 

4.  That Judge wrote familiar letters to Mrs. Tingley, indicating the 
high esteem in which he held her.  

. . . To sum up.  The evidence is that Judge received and accepted as 
genuine what he regarded as communications from H.P.B., dead nearly 
four years; that these, quoted by Hargrove and endorsed by several 
others who claimed to have seen the documents, were highly laudatory 
of Katherine Tingley and accepted as such by Judge, and that Judge 
conferred with Mrs. Tingley and sought her advice on certain matters 
contained in them and sent portions to the London E.S.T.  It now 
remains for those [ULT/Theosophy Company writers] whose exalted 
opinion of Judge precludes such possibilities to wriggle out as best 
they can, or to retract publicly their slanderous charges against 
brother theosophists, or, else, which is far more likely, to decline 
to look facts in the face. . . . 

. . . In this and the preceding articles I have been concerned with 
the actual facts, not with theories as to what Judge might or should 
have done based on preconceived views of his character, or whether 
the facts are consistent with his earlier attitude or writings.  
Theories must fit facts, not facts ignored to support theories.  Had 
Judge lost his grip and allowed himself to be imposed on by 
Tingley?   Was Crosbie, the third member of the U.L.T. Holy Trinity, 
the confidant of Judge, and who was so sure Judge had appointed 
Tingley, fooled or lying?  Or is it possible that Tingley was far 
from being the scheming ogre that some would represent her to be, and 
that Judge knew just what he was about in trusting her, and that 
Crosbie was entirely familiar with this and approved of it?  I am not 
going to express an opinion, at least here, except to say very 
distinctly that charges of forgery, or even vague insinuations such 
as have been made (Theosophy, Oct., 1933, page 572) reflect only on 
the character of the persons making them, unless backed by 
proof. . . .
===========================================================
Quoted from:  http://blavatskyarchives.com/stokes/stokessummary.htm

Daniel
http://hpb.cc