Feb 09, 1994 03:04 PM
by Jerry Hejka-Ekins
Considering your position as a historian, and the way that I
believe you define the term, I would agree with your assessment
that Godwin is not hostile. However I am using a different
criteria for classifying theosophical historians and writers. In
my use of the term, I would put Godwin and Meade in the hostile
category, as well as Campbell and Hodgson. I would also put Col.
Olcott in this category also.
"Hostile Attitude" in my use of the term then, is not simply
a box to put everyone who is not a "true believer." Certainly
Olcott was a "true believer" but I still consider his attitude
toward H.P.B. to be hostile. My classification of hostile
therefore, is based upon a personal assessment of the motivations
behind the criticism, not the criticism itself. It also has
nothing to do with the quality or the depth of their research.
As for "blinders," that is very closely related to attitude, so I
see this as an indirect factor. I could be mis-judging Godwin,
but based upon his interaction with TH, and his writings, his
attitude appears to me to be hostile towards H.P.B.. Further
evidence may change my attitude concerning his attitude.
For examples of "critical historians" I would put Gomes,
Cooper, Santucci, you and myself. So I think our differences in
classification is more a matter of definition.
By the way, in reference to the above, I think you should be
aware that as an associate editor of TH, I have never opposed the
publication of anything Godwin has submitted. So I guess that
doesn't make me a very good "true believer."
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application