Published by Blavatsky Study Center.  Online Edition copyright 2003.

A Summary of Dr. H.N. Stokes' Conclusions
about the Controversy Surrounding Judge & Tingley

[Collated from two of H.N. Stokes' articles More about the Judge "Diary" 
and William Q. Judge and Katherine Tingley - II.]

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.  [See also Some Testimony Concerning Mr. Judge's Close Relationship with Mrs. Tingley.]

. . . 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 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. . . .

[Compare the above with  A Summary of the Views of the Editors of Theosophy Magazine Concerning the Claims about Mrs. Katherine Tingley.]

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