Published by Blavatsky Study Center.  Online Edition copyright 2003.


William Q. Judge and Katherine Tingley - II

by H.N. Stokes

[Reprinted from O.E. Library Critic (Washington, D.C.), January-February 1935, pp. 6-8.]


Other Letters to Tingley

Further, I have three letters from Mrs. Tingley's files, two originals and one a photograph, written to her after Judge's death by a person who was for years closely associated with her.  The name of the writer must be kept confidential, as well as the contents, other than to state that they are such as would be communicated by the writer only to his chief.  In each of these Mrs. Tingley is addressed by the same sign "X". These letters are all handwritten, the script being identical, and are as follows:

1.  Original, dated Sept. 28th, 1896, written on the writer's business letterhead, beginning "My very dear Preceptor X" and signed with a symbol.

2.  Original, undated, written from the writer's home on paper with the T.S. symbol, beginning "My dear X" and signed with the writer's initials.

3.  Photograph of the original, dated March 15, 1897, written on the same business letterhead as No. 1, addressed to "My dear X" and signed with the writer's initials.

We have then the positive proof that the special sign which I have designated here and elsewhere as "X" and which was used by Judge in the script of his purported communications from H.P.B. about the end of 1894 and beginning of 1895 was also used by him in addressing Mrs. Tingley, that he knew at the time that it was Mrs. Tingley who was referred to, and that the same sign was used by others in writing to Mrs. Tingley after Judge's death.  The same holds for the secondary sign "13".  That "Xb" is the same as "X" is shown by the scripts speaking of her as "our mystery".  That the Judge scripts in photograph occasionally use others signs apparently referring to the same person, and in one case questionably, all of which were translated by Hargrove as "Promise" and referred by him to Mrs. Tingley in no wise affects the force of the conclusion that Judge was receiving from some source what he regarded as communications from H.P.B. endorsing Mrs. Tingley - see above - but admonishing him to keep her "in the background in outer work."  This should afford a sufficient reason why she was not mentioned by name in any discovered documents in his writing, even when quoting H.P.B.'s "communications" to others, as to Dr. Archibald Keightley (see November, 1932, CRITIC).   One has but to read between the lines of Judge's letter to Mrs. Tingley (October, 1932, CRITIC) to sense the esteem in which he held her.

Summary

To sum up:

1.  Judge received various communications supposed by him to be from the spirit of H.P.B., endorsing a woman whom he designated by the sign "X", and on one occasion by "13" and on another by "Xb".

2.  Judge was in the habit of writing to Mrs. Tingley, addressing her by the same sign "X", and also "13" and this even before the date of the H.P.B. scripts.  He must therefore have known that H.P.B. was referring to Mrs. Tingley.

3.  Others used the same sign "X" in writing to Mrs. Tingley after Judge's death. [See also the use of this same sign in Neresheimer's letter to Cleather.]

4.  Hargrove is cleared of the charge of "concocting" his quotations as is J.H. Fussell.  Hargrove was fully justified in assuming that it was Mrs. Tingley whom Judge had in mind.

What Crosbie said about Tingley

5.  While nothing has come to light in Judge's handwriting appointing Mrs. Tingley as his "successor" - the reason for which may be surmised from the above -  Robert Crosbie - of whom it is claimed by the United Lodge of Theosophists (official pamphlet, The United Lodge of Theosophists:  Its Mission and its Future, page 6) that "During all the troublous period 1893-6 Mr. Crosbie shared to an extend unknown and undreamt of by others in the burdens and the confidence of Mr. Judge" - has distinctly stated (his printed address of April 1, 1901, published in the pamphlet "In honor of W.Q. Judge", page 46; see May, 1933, CRITIC):

"Madame Blavatsky was the first leader, by force of her wisdom and power of leadership, and all true students of Theosophy accepted her as such.  And when she appointed William Q. Judge as her successor, his leadership was accepted for the same reason and so, too, with Katherine Tingley, who was appointed by William Q. Judge as his successor."

Unless, therefore, we are to assume that Mr. Crosbie, founder of the U.L.T., the intimate sharer "in the burdens and the confidence of Mr. Judge", was falsifying, he must have had good reasons for thinking that such were at least Judge's intentions.  In fact, if the reader could have the opportunity of reading the personal letters of Judge to Tingley referred to above, he would see that, to paraphrase what the U.L.T. says of Crosbie:

"During all the troublous period 1893-6 Katherine Tingley shared to an extent unknown and undreamt of by others (if we except Robert Crosbie!) in the burdens and the confidence of Mr. Judge." (with due allowance regarding the earlier date.)

[See also Robert Crosbie on KatherineTingley.]

Concerned with Facts, not Theories

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, including an explanation of why a forger so ingenious as to have faked a series of interrelated documents and planted them here and there in order to boost Mrs. Tingley's successorship, was so stupid as entirely to have forgotten to mention that successorship at all, and, likewise, how Crosbie could have committed such an egregious blunder.  As for the Bombay U.L.T. organ, The Theosophical Movement, which reflected on the integrity of Dr. Fussell (though not by name) and refused to give even a summary of his defense when asked by him to do so, perhaps the less said the better, for it would not be complimentary.

[List of References]

For the assistance of those who wish to look further into this matter the following list of references is appended:

E.S.T. circular of April 3rd, 1896.  Contains the "Hargrove quotations".
In Honor of W.Q. Judge.  Point Loma pamphlet, 1901.  Crosbie's speech.
The Theosophical Movement;  A History and a SurveyChap. xxxv, "Judge's Death and the Tingley
          'Successorship'."  U.L.T. book
The United Lodge of Theosophists; Its Mission and its Future.  Official U.L.T. pamphlet, 1923.
Some Reminiscences of William Q. Judge, by E.A. Neresheimer.  Privately circulated in 1932; especially
          page 10.
Canadian Theosophist, May, 1932, page 69.
CRITIC, June, 1932: "Mr. Smythe in the Bog".
Canadian Theosophist, June, 1932, page 126; reply by J.H. Fussell.
Canadian Theosophist, June, 1932, page 125.  J.M. Pryse on "Judge's Unprintable Diary".
CRITIC, July, 1932; "Dr. Fussell Replies".
The Theosophical Movement, Bombay U.L.T. July, 1932, page 69.
CRITIC, Sept., 1932, "The Judge 'Occult Diary'."  Publishes some of the original Judge scripts.
CRITIC, Oct., 1932.  "A Letter from W.Q. Judge to Katherine Tingley";
          "In the Interest of Truth".
CRITIC, Nov., 1932.  "A Letter from W.Q. Judge to Dr. A. Keightley".
Canadian Theosophist, Jan., 1933; page 353 (Smythe); page 353 (Fussell).
The Theosophical Movement, Bombay U.L.T. Jan., 1933, page 22.  Refuses to retract.
CRITIC, Dec., 1932.  "More about the Judge 'Diary'."  
          "Canadian Theosophist withdraws Charges";
          "A Theosophical Grotesque".
The Theosophical Quarterly, July, 1933, page 88.  Letter of E.T. Hargrove.
CRITIC, March, 1933.  "The Judge Diary Question - Mr. Hargrove Speaks";
          "In Defense of Robert Crosbie".
Theosophical Forum, March, 1933, page 208.  "The U.L.T. Speaks".
Theosophy, Oct., 1933, pp. 569-572; editorial comments on Hargrove, Fussell, etc.
CRITIC, May, 1933.  "In Defense of Robert Crosbie - II".
CRITIC, Nov.-Dec., 1934; Jan. 1935.  "William Q. Judge and Katherine Tingley".

[Additional references not given by Stokes but relevant to the subject will be found in the Appendices.]


Return to Table of Contents of H.N. Stock's
"William Q. Judge and Katherine Tingley" series of articles