---

The Theosophical Movement 1875-1950

By

---

Aftermath In America

BEFORE PASSING to other phases of twentieth-century Theosophical history, some attention should be given to the general aftermath of the Tingley succession. The claims for Mrs. Tingley’s high status rested, as we have seen, upon alleged “written instructions” from Mr. Judge and upon “psychic” impressions or communications received by the eight prominent members, headed by E. T. Hargrove, who arranged and participated in the E.S.T. meeting in New York of March 29, 1896. Of these eight, Hargrove was the first to reverse himself and to repudiate Mrs. Tingley as Judge’s successor. In his E.S. pamphlet of May 17, 1896, “An Occultist’s Life,” he had by implication elevated Mrs. Tingley above even H.P.B. and Judge in respect to her “training and preparation.” He was, he explains, “directed” to make these statements concerning Mrs. Tingley. But two years later he is again “directed,” this time to reject Mrs. Tingley and to “expose” her. His authority in both cases was “the Master.” Together with his few associates, Mr. Hargrove re-formed the “original” Theosophical Society and continued to hold small and “conser vative” meetings in New York City. The publication issued by Mr. Hargrove’s group, the Theosophical Quarterly, was never much concerned with the dissemination of straight Theosophical teachings, but, as the years went by, assumed increasingly an Anglican ministerial tone. Finally, in July, 1935, the Quarterly announced the suspension of publication, the reason given being that a period of “indrawal” was then at hand. Mr. Hargrove died on April 8, 1939. It should be said, finally, that among those who regarded Mr. Hargrove as “Masters’ Agent” were some of the most cultured minds in the Movement, and some of its best known writers. Among them were Mr. and Mrs. C. A. Griscom, Jr., Mr. Charles Johnston (to whom are owed exquisite translations of the Upanishads and of Shankaracharya’s Crest-Jewel of Wisdom), Dr. Archibald Keightley and his wife (“Jasper Niemand”), Dr. J. D. Buck, and Professor H. B. Mitchell. With the exception of Dr. Buck, who eventually joined with the notorious “K.T.” and his “Great Work,” all these individuals remained faithful to Hargrove and the Society which he established in Chicago in 1898.

Of the eight “witnesses” to the Tingley succession, Hargrove and the Griscoms have been accounted for. James M. Pryse, who died in Los Angeles several years ago, did not remain loyal to Mrs. Tingley, but allied himself for a time with the “Blue Star” group, established by Mrs. Francia A. La Due (“Blue Star”) as the “Temple of the People” at Halcyon, California. Like all the other “successors,” Mrs. La Due claimed to represent the true line of occult influence and teachings, which, in turn, she is supposed to have handed on to her successor, Dr. W. H. Dower. The latter was replaced, after his death in 1937, by Mrs. Pearl F. Dower. The Temple of the People still carries on at Halcyon, holding meetings and publishing a small magazine, The Temple Artisan. Mr. Pryse, however, deserted “Blue Star” after a while and became an independent “occultist,” publishing books which since his death are distributed by his aged brother, John Pryse, still living in Los Angeles.

Claude Falls Wright drifted out of any species of Theosophical activity and is now dead, as is H. T. Patterson, whose influence was minor compared with the others’.

E. August Neresheimer, who died in 1937, was of all those who survived Mr. Judge the best loved and the most respected as a disinterested man. It seems apparent that he was somehow attracted by Mrs. Tingley’s occult pretensions and impressed by her “psychic” capacities, and that these influences, together with Hargrove’s representations, led him to support the Tingley succession. Fortunately, before he died Mr. Neresheimer put into writing a sworn statement of his recollections of the events following Judge’s death. This statement, dated February 25, 1932, contains the following affirmation:
Among all the papers and other documents left by Mr. Judge, we found nothing whatever in his handwriting bearing upon the future conduct of the society after his death. Nor did we find anything in his writing naming Mrs. Tingley or anyone else, either directly or indirectly, as his successor in the affairs of the Theosophical Society in America, or in its Esoteric Section, or any directions of any kind to be followed in the event of his death. . .
Mr. Judge cannot, in my opinion, be held responsible for the mistakes—made by others after his decease, since he never either by spoken or written word nominated, or even suggested a successor, or gave any instructions whatsoever as to the direction of the Society, or the 1 “Esoteric Section” after his death.

When it is recalled that Mr. Neresheimer was made by Mr. Judge his Executor and that as such he took possession of all Judge’s papers, including the so-called “Diary,” supposed to have contained the written appointment of “Promise,” this statement, issued under oath, ought to cause those who still claim the appointment of Mrs. Tingley by Mr. Judge to produce unequivocal evidence to controvert what Mr. Neresheimer says. It has since been alleged that Mr. Neresheimer was later shown other “diary” notes and that he admitted them to be in Judge’s writing; and that, further, he agreed to revise his statement 2 accordingly, but this he did not do, so that his statement must stand, until, at least, those “other” notes are produced for impartial examination.

Alone among the eight witnesses, Mr. Joseph H. Fussell remained faithful to his testimony of March 29, 1896, becoming the indefatigable apologist of the “successorship” claim, whether in behalf of Mrs. Tingley or of Dr. de Purucker. On the occasion of Dr. de Purucker’s bid for re-union of all theosophists under the aegis of 3 the Point Loma headquarters, Mr. Fussell asserted that “successorship” is the veritable essence of all Theosophical achievement, exclaiming,
Think a moment : look at the logic of it. Here is the T. S. today, a living body under the guidance and direction of a living Teacher, continuing and expanding the work of his great Predecessor, H.P.B. Whence comes the life of the T.S. today? . . .
H.P.B. years ago said that her work would be vindicated in the twentieth century. It is already vindicated, and increasingly so, by the work and methods of work of her Successor, the present Leader of the T. S. . . . And the logic of it is: Successorship!

Until his death in 1942, Mr. Fussell continued to argue, almost obsessively, for the validity of Theosophical “succes sors.” He conducted a voluminous personal correspondence on the subject, continuously affirming that Mr. Judge appointed Katherine Tingley to succeed him and as continuously failing to produce more than loose descriptions of the “evidence” of this action by Mr. Judge. Mr. Fussell’s correspondence is also marked by gross attacks and slanders against the character of other Theosophists, while, in his public writings, he was calling for “unity” and greeting the members of other societies and associations as “Brothers.” Further, in one letter he referred to the treachery of Mrs. Besant, while publicly he was soliciting fraternal relations with her society, despite the fact that the “treachery” spoken of had been unacknowledged, unatoned for, and repeated again and again. What value has a “unity” that is sought on such contradictory grounds?

The “successorship” controversy was again openly revived in 1946 by a Covina member, Mr. Charles J. Ryan (since deceased), in a letter to the Canadian Theosophist. This publication is issued in Hamilton, Ontario, and was at that time edited by the late A. E. S. Smythe, an old-time Theosophist who had for nearly half a century maintained a running fire of criticism of the conduct of the various schismatic societies calling themselves “Theosophical.” Mr. Ryan’s letter objected to an article which Mr. Smythe had reprinted from 4 Theosophy for April, I946. This article had taken exception to a statement by a non-Theosophical writer in Harper’s to the effect that Mr. Judge appointed Mrs. Tingley as his successor.

In his letter to the Canadian Theosophist (for September, 1946), Mr. Ryan undertakes to defend two contentions: (1) That successorship of the sort claimed for Mrs. Tingley is in accord with occult law, and with the precedent and teaching of H. P. Blavatsky and William Q. Judge; and (2) that Mr. Judge did in fact intend Mrs. Tingley to be his “occult successor.”

Mr. Ryan endeavors to dispose of Mr. Judge’s statement 5 concerning the Foulke case by claiming that Mr. Judge didn’t really mean what he said—that he, Judge, wrote “in the heat of battle” when he declared, in hisletter to the Wilkesbarre Times:
Madame Blavatsky has no “successor,” could have none, never contemplated, selected, or notified one. . . . all who enjoyed her confidence will unite with me in the assertion that she never even hinted at “succession,” . . .

Mr. Judge, argues Mr. Ryan, either chose these words carelessly, “or momentarily had forgotten certain facts.” This was hardly characteristic of Judge. Calm deliberation was his outstanding attribute in all situations. The letter in question contains a categorical repudiation of successorship and provides, also, the Theosophical principles upon which Mr. Judge bases what he says. The repudiation stands, regardless of any attempt to explain it away.

Mr. Ryan also collects a number of fleeting references to “successorship” from various places in the Theosophical literature. One such, from Old Diary Leaves (I, 462), makes Col. Olcott say that H.P.B. often spoke to him about possible “successors.” Torn from its context, this sounds impressive. Actually, the passage cited is one of Olcott’s typically slighting references to H.P.B., in which he says: “I think I could name a number of women who hold her [H.P.B.’s] letters saying that they are to be her successors in the T. S.” And Olcott adds, a little later: “I saw that all her eulogies were valueless.” They are certainly valueless to Mr. Ryan’s argument.
That H.P.B. made occasional use of the word “successor” there can be no doubt, but nowhere does she endow it with the special significance Mr. Ryan claims for it. This must have been Judge’s view, else how could he say, in 1892, in the letter to the Wilkesbarre Times, that “she never even hinted at ‘succession’ ”? Furthermore, all the references to successors to H.P.B. which Mr. Ryan digs out of the pages of the Theosophist are from issues appearing in 1884 and 1885—years before the establishment of the Esoteric Section.

Mr. Ryan quotes from the Countess Wachtmeister a statement by H.P.B. naming Annie Besant as her “successor” and her “sole hope in England.” Can we suppose that Judge, ever loyal to H.P.B.’s decisions, would have deposed Mrs. Besant as Co-Outer Head of the E.S., if such a use of the term “successor” should be taken in the sense of spiritual or “occult” successorship?

H.P.B.’s own teaching on succession in spiritual authority appears in Isis Unveiled, where she condemns the apostolic succession as “a 6 gross and palpable fraud.” This statement, Mr. Ryan contends, bears no application “outside the Roman Church.” The Roman succession from Saint Peter, he proposes, is false, but other successions may be true. If this is the sole meaning of H.P.B.’s condemnation of “apostolic succession,” then by what unhappy choice did Dr. Gottfried de Purucker, in 1929, single out the analogy of the succession in “the Christian Church” to illustrate his right to the status and authority of “Leader” in the Point Loma Society after Mrs. Tingley had died? In the ecclesiastical society of the early Church, Dr. de Purucker related, developing the parallel, “Teacher succeeded Teacher, or Leader succeeded Leader.” He added that while “the spiritual aspect of this true system died out very quickly in the 7 Christian Church. . . . it has not died out among us.”

But H.P.B. has nothing to say about the “Divine Light” which de Purucker alleges illuminated the early years of the Christian Church. She says simply that “the apostolic succession is a gross and palpable fraud.” It would have been easy for her to say, in any event, that there is a true apostolic succession as well as a false one, but she did not. Such statements were left unsaid until Dr. de Purucker and Mr. Fussell came along to make them. H.P.B. did not, as Judge remarked, even “hint” at Theosophical successorship.

H.P.B. did speak of the factors which would determine the future of the Theosophical Movement. In the closing section of The Key to Theosophy, she referred to the “unbiassed and clear judgment” which would be needed by the “successors in the guidance of the Society.” She continued:
Every such attempt as the Theosophical Society has hitherto ended in failure, because, sooner or later, it has degenerated into a sect, set up hard-and-fast dogmas of its own, and so lost by imperceptible degrees that vitality which living truth alone can impart.

The original Society has largely degenerated into not one, but several sects, and the dogma which has been chiefly responsible for sectarianism among theosophists is the dogma of succession in spiritual authority. No other claim ever rent the Society so much as this one; no other presumption has so betrayed the great impersonality of the Movement.

Mr. Ryan’s assertion that Judge “fully accepted the principle and the fact of successorship” in his E.S.T. Circular of November 3, 1894, needs examination. Mr. Judge, as there stated, after deposing Mrs. Besant, resumed “functions and powers” given to him before H.P.B.’s passing, and which were his, potentially, from 1888. He “resumed” these “functions and powers” under “orderly succession” after H.P.B.’s death, exercising them as the accredited “representative of H.P.B.” This is not apostolic succession. Mr. Judge lays no claim to any “Divine Light” that became his source of spiritual authority in virtue of the fact that H.P.B. had left the scene. What light he had was his own, gained, to borrow the words of his Wilkesbarre Times letter, “by individual attainment through long discipline and conquest.” If he had been H.P.B.’s successor in the sense claimed by Mr. Ryan, or in the sense that Mrs. Tingley was presented as Judge’s successor, would not Mr. Judge have made some mention of it himself? Neither Mrs. Tingley nor Dr. de Piirucker failed to do so.

We come now to the “evidence” that Judge intended Mrs. Tingley to be his occult successor. “Mr. Judge,” says Mr. Ryan, “left notes on this subject which are so plain and showed such confidence in Katherine Tingley that even had there been no other reasons for their action the Council could not reasonably have done anything but accept her as the rightful successor in the E.S.T.” The “notes” referred to are nothing more than transcripts of “psychic” messages, obtained through Mrs. Tingley as medium, and alleged to be to Judge from the discarnate H.P.B. The tone of these “notes” is explanation enough of the reluctance of their present possessors to make them easily accessible. Although dressed up in feeble imitation of H.P.B.’s colloquial style, they are strongly reminiscent of the drivel of the séance.

Mr. Judge’s view of “documentary proof ” of this sort is r eve a l ed by his answe r to Foulke ’s c l a im tha t H.P.B. communicated to him from beyond the grave. “He [Foulke] may assert,” wrote Mr. Judge, “that he has baskets full of letters from Mme. Blavatsky written before her death, and we are not interested either to deny the assertion or to desire to see the documents.” If Theosophists who believe in “successors” and “leaders” would be as assiduous in studying the Path Magazine, edited by Mr. Judge, as they have been in searching out cryptic meanings in an alleged “occult diary,” they might find in the Path a statement by Mr. Judge on the matter of official “Leaders” of the Society. He there comments on an Executive Notice by Col. Olcott by saying that one of its purposes, which he (Judge) approves, was “to prevent any fixing of the T. S. to H. P. Blavatsky by means of the use of the 9 word ‘leader’.” Yet Mrs. Tingley’s supporters, neglecting Judge’s obvious meaning, or ignorant of this statement, proceeded on an opposite course, chanting the word “leader” until it became a Theosophical fetish.

In 1932, several years after the death of Mrs. Tingley, some of the “notes” or pages from the “occult diary” came to light 1 0 in the pages of the O. E. Library Critic. Dr. H. N. Stokes, editor of the Critic, then expressed his own opinion that the “notes” were in Judge’s handwriting, but left the reader to conclude that this identification proves, not that Mrs. Tingley was properly chosen as Judge’s occult successor in the “true line” of the Movement, but rather that Judge was deluded into thinking that he had received spiritualistic communications from H.P.B.! Now if Dr. Stokes suspected that Judge was a broken reed, the victim of such psychic follies, how could Mr. Ryan cite Stokes in support of the Tingley succession? Mr. Ryan, apparently, welcomed Stokes’ judgment that the psychically received notes were in Judge’s handwriting, but the price he paid for this vindication was the reduction of Judge to a dabbler in Spiritualism, a mere psychic dupe. Judge, whom H.P.B. called “part of myself for eons past,” needed a medium, a “helper,” to get in touch with H.P.B.! What can succession to such a “leader” be worth?

Mr. Ryan cites as “one of the most important pieces of evidence” a letter by Mrs. Archibald Keightley, published in the Searchlight of May, 1898, in which she had affirmed that Mrs. Tingley’s appointment “came from and was directed by the Master.” But Mrs. Keightley rapidly “changed” either her mind or her Master, as the scathing terms in which she referred to Mrs. Tingley at the Chicago Convention of February 18, 1898, make abundantly clear. Mr. Ryan also men tions a letter by Mr. Neresheimer, said to be in the Covina archives, in which the writer informs Mrs. Alice Cleather that “oc cult instr uc tion” ha s come through from Judg e , appointing Mrs. Tingley as Outer Head and directing that Mrs. Cleather be added to the “Council.” Mrs. Cleather, who accompanied Mrs. Tingley on the “Crusade,” began as an enthusiastic supporter of the new Leader, but gave a much revised estimate of Mr. Judge’s “successor” a few years later. Questions from Eleanor H. Dunlop in January, 1900, brought the following replies from Mrs. Cleather:
“Did you hear the ‘Leader’ [Mrs. Tingley] depreciate H.P.B. ?” “Yes, repeatedly.” “Have you any evidence that Mr. Judge appointed a successor?” “No.I neversaw any of the documentssaid to exist.” “You accepted the ‘Leader,’ then,simply on faith?” “Entirely, and was utterly disappointed in the result. So far as I have been able to observe from pretty close association she showed no real knowledge of the esoteric philosophy, and constantly violated the occult teaching.”

This is part of an interview with Mrs. Cleather, published in the Lamp for February, 1900, a Theosophical journal then conducted by Mr. A. E. S. Smythe, later editor of the Canadian Theosophist. Much matter pertinent to all these questions appeared in the Lamp in 1899 and 1900.

Mr. Neresheimer, Mr. Ryan’s last witness, is so quoted as to make it plain that even before Mr. Judge’s death, he, along with others, obtained “messages” through Mrs. Tingley. It is not remarkable that these “occult” messages were to be kept secret from Mr. Judge. Mr. Neresheimer and the others were pledged to avoid all such intercourse.

A sifting of the evidence for the claim that Mrs. Tingley was the occult successor to William Q. Judge produces a few simple statements of fact:
Upon Mr. Judge’s death, March 21, 1896, a small group of persons who had been closely associated with him met privately and came to the conclusion that a “leader” or “successor” was needed or desirable. These persons agreed upon Katherine Tingley as the leader and at a meeting of the E.S.T. on March 29 they informed those present that they “knew” who the new leader and successor was. Papers said to have been written by Mr. Judge and the oral testimony of the members of this group were offered in evidence of the true “occult” character of the succession.

Respecting these facts, it is apparent that most if not all of the “documentary proofs” were of “psychic” inspiration. It is of record that the leading figure in the “revelation” of March 29, E. T. Hargrove, repudiated the succession of Mrs. Tingley in less than two years after he had solemnly proposed it, saying that she had been “run in” as Outer Head of the E.S. “as the only person in sight who was ready to hand at the time.” E. August Neresheimer stated under oath in 1932 that no evidence of this appointment was found among Judge’s effects. James M. Pryse is on record as having characterized Mrs. Tingley as Mr. Judge’s “favorite spirit-medium,” and as saying that the famous “occult diar y” was for him too “sentimental, mushy and spiritualistic . . . to wade through.” Mr. Joseph H. Fussell is on record as having written, on March 28, 1896, to the Rev. S. J. Neill in New Zealand: “So far as is at present known W. Q. Judge has left no instructions in regard to carrying on the work of the School.”

The Theosophical “succession” of Mrs. Tingley thus becomes lost in a morass of psychic delusion, of claims and counter-claims. If the “evidence” for it be accepted, Judge becomes a guileless psychic and a virtual “disciple” of Mrs. Tingley. If the evidence is rejected, Mrs. Tingley becomes at best a self-deluded woman, at worst a charlatan, and so, also, her close supporters.

Judge never appointed K.T. by any legal document. The proofs that K.T. gave of her mission and the reality of her being the Messenger of the Lodge, were the same that 11 Blavatsky and Judge gave.”

Apparently, Dr. de Purucker had come to realize the fruitlessness of pressing documentary proofs. But pretensions to this sort of proof were used in 1896, in order to prepare both the E.S. and the general body of the T.S.A. for Mrs. Tingley’s successorship. This lady was at that time virtually unknown to the Society, and her contributions to the Movement were so “occult” as to have been hidden from all but a few psychic confidantes. The procedure followed by Mrs. Tingley and her sponsors to gain for her the trust and support of thousands of American theosophists was the precise opposite of the example set by H.P.B. and Judge. The confidence enjoyed by these two Teachers had grown out of recognition of their lifelong labors for Theosophy; the credentials of their occult knowledge and responsibility were self-evident, depending upon no claims or “appointments” secured through psychic communiqués and private revelations.

If Mrs. Tingley’s admirers now prefer to let the issue rest on her record, well and good. To this no theosophist can have objection. Had this been the policy of the leaders of the Theosophical Society in America at the time of Judge’s passing, Theosophy would have a much fairer name in the modern world and inquirers might be less confused by the splits in the Movement, the personal controversies and claims to special authority.