The following letter from H.P. Blavatsky to W.Q. Judge is dated May 1st, 1885. From a chronological point of view, it is the first of the Andover-Harvard letters from Blavatsky to Judge, which have been transcribed by Mr. Michael Gomes and published with his commentaries during the 1990s at “Theosophical History” magazine.
We thank the editor of “Theosophical History”, Mr. James Santucci, and the transcriber, for the publication of these historical documents. 
Honest archivists and librarians do most important tasks. Yet not all of them allow themselves to study theosophy from the point of view of “the doctrine of the heart”, which would liberate them from “the doctrine of the eye” and pseudo-esotericism. One small event illustrates the fact: while correctly copying the text of the following letter, the compiler failed to understand its contents and therefore says that it “may be regarded as part of their damage control”.
In fact, H.P.B. did not care for politics or “damage control techniques”. Her utter sincerity was often uncomfortable to others. She paid the price for that. This letter to Judge was obviously written from her heart, and is not the result of any sort of political calculation.
The person to whom H.P.B. most refers in the letter - “than whom no one in the world, not even the Coulombs or the padris, has done us and me such harm” - is Dr. Franz Hartmann.
Some students might tend to disagree with H.P.B.’s severe statements about Hartmann. They could argue that years later Hartmann received a few letters from H.P.B. with profound compliments to him. They were published after H.P.B.’s death. Yet the argument is false for there are no indications that those letters could be authentic. In fact, many elements of information indicate otherwise. Among them, we see these two, which are stated by H.P.B. in the following letter: 1) Hartmann was a liar; and 2) He himself admitted to theosophists in India that he had forged letters.
Besides, H.P.B. rarely made any personal compliments to anyone. Much less so to Hartmann, of course.
It is true that in his autobiography Dr. Hartmann published parts of letters he supposedly received from Mahatmas. In these excerpts “Masters” are made to express their “blessings” to him - and they show a pronounced admiration for Hartmann’s personal or lower self qualities and talents. The reality is that, just as H.P.B., Mahatmas never sent letters with any emphatic personal compliments to students or disciples. Masters and Disciples are not in the business of flattering personalities. Hartmann is therefore not an acceptable source of letters from Mahatmas, or from H.P.B.
There seems to be two references to doctor Hartmann in the Mahatma Letters, and both are indications that Hartmann was far from deserving “compliments” from Masters.
One of the passages can be found at letter LXV, dated “summer 1884”. In it the Master says Hartmann “hates” Damodar Mavalankar. This is enough to show that Hartmann was not in harmony with the work of the Mahatmas. The solemn Law among co-disciples is mutual respect and mutual help in all possible ways, and Hartmann was in intense conflict with, and developing aggressive unethical actions against, Damodar - one of the best chelas known in the history of the theosophical movement.
As to Helena Blavatsky, her physical organism was highly apt to perceive subtle energies, and she confessed she could not bear the sickening magnetism of Dr. Hartmann’s presence.
In October 1884, H.P.B. wrote to Alfred Sinnett:
“I had to give up to Hartmann my (own) room, and slept for six nights on the sofa in my writing room. The magnetism of that man is sickening; his lying beastly; his slander Hübbe Schleiden, his intrigues unaccountable but on the ground that he is either a maniac - utterly irresponsible for the most part, or allowed to be possessed of by his own dugpa Spirit. He is exceedingly friendly with me - and was trying all the time to put me up to every kind of mischief.”
H.P.B.’s perceptions were shared by a Sage much wiser than her.
The second evidence in the Mahatma Letters as to the position of Masters regarding Dr. Hartmann is at the end of this same 1884 letter by H.P.B. Right below her signature, her laconic Master precipitated this one sentence corroborating her views:
“Approximately true copy of one 8th of the whole truth. M.” (In “The Letters of H.P. Blavatsky to A.P. Sinnett”, TUP, p. 125)
In the same confirmed letter, H.P.B. tells Sinnett that Hartmann has offered her to tell lies to “benefit” her. In doing so, Dr. Hartmann naturally pretended to ignore the fact that liars are not theosophists, and theosophists are not liars. He was also trying to cancel the motto of the movement, which is a thorough commitment to truthfulness, as it says:
“There is no religion higher than truth”.
Massive indications that Dr. Hartmann was not in tune with HPB, the Masters or truthfulness can also be found in his satiric novel “The Talking Image of Urur”.
Most of the novel was published by H.P.B. in her magazine, by 1889, in a remarkable acceptance on her part of disrespectful mockery against herself. Why did she do so? In order to understand it, one must remember that disciples have an obligation to defend others who are unjustly attacked, but they often abstain from defending themselves. This is the reason why H.P.B. published that novel; yet she does write that Hartmann represented her in his “Talking Image” as “a kind of mediumistic poll parrot”. H.P.B. adds that it is against her that Hartmann’s satiric novel is mostly directed. 
In her capacity as editor of the magazine, H.P.B. published two precepts at the end of the first installment of the novel. The first one, from Swift, said:
“Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders generally discover everybody’s face but their own.”
The other precept was from Epictetus:
“If evil be said of thee, and if it be true, correct thyself; if it be a lie, laugh at it”. 
Evidences about the nature of Hartmann’s actions are many. In September 1885, H.P.B. said in a letter to Mr. Sinnett:
“Poor Hartmann. He is a bad lot, but he would give his life for the Masters and Occultism, though he would do far more progress with the dugpas than with our people. He is like the tortoise - one step forward and two back; with me now he seems very friendly. But I cannot trust him.” 
Franz Hartmann undoubtedly had positive accomplishments. He was a complex man who also did helpful actions. These, of course, made it possible for him to be accepted in the movement, and also made HPB and the Masters have a balanced position with regard to him. Because of this, once Hartmann’s real role was identified during the Adyar crisis of 1884-85, it was a rather difficult operation to make him leave Adyar. H.P.B. narrates such difficulties in the letter below.
Hartmann wrote a “Theosophical Fable” which was favorably commented by H.P.B. Yet in the fable he makes two mistakes: 1) Foresees H.P.B’s “destruction” and 2) Announces the end of the theosophical movement. Hartmann was wrong in both negative predictions, and his dark views of the future had no connection to reality.
H.P.B. did more than consider Hartmann dangerous. She worried even when he seemed to act in her defence. His “solidarity” was ambiguous: at the occult level, it caused harm to her. He wrote, for instance, that H.P.B. was “innocent of any willful imposture” -, thus suggesting that she made impostures anyway. H.P.B. ironically comments this sort of “solidarity”:
“Is he going to make of me an irresponsible medium? That would be a last stroke to my reputation.”
In another letter to A.P. Sinnett, H.P.B. writes:
“On that night when Mrs. Oakley and Hartmann and everyone except Bowajee (D. N.), expected me every minute to breathe my last - I learned all. I was shown who was right and who wrong (unwittingly) and who was entirely treacherous; and a general sketch of what I had to expect outlined before me. Ah, I tell you, I have learnt things on that night - things that stamped themselves for-ever on my Soul; black treachery, assumed friendship for selfish ends, belief in my guilt, and yet a determination to lie in my defence, since I was a convenient step to rise upon, and what not! Human nature I saw in all its hideousness in that short hour, when I felt one of Master’s hands upon my heart, forbidding it cease beating, and saw the other calling out sweet future before me.” 
The fact that Franz Hartmann had a confusing, ambiguous view of all ethical matters can be seen in his letter entitled “The Clash of Opinion”, published at “Lucifer” magazine in January 1895, pp. 427-428.
While commenting on the situation created by the political persecution against William Judge, which was then being organized by Annie Besant, Hartmann writes that in his opinion it does not matter whether letters received from Mahatmas are genuine or false (p. 428). He pretends to defend Judge in the same way he acted regarding H.P.B. -; that is, by saying, in other words, that “it is all the same whether our leaders are frauds or not, as long as we study theosophy”. He wants people to ignore that only honest methods and actions enable an individual to have discernment and see truth. The matter of the fact is that liars blind themselves to truth, and no movement based on fraud can ever have any legitimacy.
Perhaps due to the criterion of affinity, also in 1895 Franz Hartmann was helping translate into German Annie Besant’s adulterated version of “The Secret Doctrine”.
In the following letter, while explaining the events in 1884-85, H.P.B. says to Judge:
“I left [Adyar] because at the very moment when we were going to triumph, he [Franz Hartmann] lied so infernally that he upset in one day the work of truth & justice and, if he did not ruin the Society (for no one in heaven or hell can do so, except the Masters) it was because I sacrificed myself, and going away into voluntary exile, took him away with me.”
“He [F. Hartmann] cares not a fig for the Cause, the T.S. or even the Masters…”.
As to William Judge, he admitted his mistake as soon as he received H.P.B.’s letter. From that moment on, he fully cooperated with H.P.B. After her death in 1891, Judge played a key role in preserving the theosophical movement and its original teachings.
In the letter below, underlined words are so according to the transcription published by “Theosophical History”, with one exception. In the magazine’s transcription, a few words are not only underlined by a single line, but with a double line. We ignore the difference.
A question mark in square brackets - [?] - means that the transcriber was in doubt as to the word in the originals. Words in brackets followed by question marks are attempts by the transcriber to guess the word in the original. We add explanatory notes to some passages in H.P.B.’s letter.
(Carlos Cardoso Aveline)
 “The Friendly Philosopher”, by Robert Crosbie, Theosophy Company, Los Angeles, 1945, 416 pp., see p. 162.
 The present letter is reproduced from “Theosophical History”, Vol. V, Number 2, April 1994, pp. 50-58. We incorporate in the text the corrections to it indicated by its transcriber, Michael Gomes, in the October 1994 edition of the magazine (p. 123).
 See p. 49 in “Theosophical History”, April 1994.
 “Damodar”, by Sven Eek, TPH, India, 1965-1978, 720 pp., pp. 601-606, especially 601-603.
 “The Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnett”, TUP, Pasadena, California, p. 363.
 “The Letters of H. P. Blavatsky to A.P. Sinnett”, TUP, Pasadena, Letter L, p. 121.
 “On Pseudo-Theosophy”, an article in “Theosophical Articles”, by H.P.B., Theosophy Co., Los Angeles, volume I, p. 162.
 See “Lucifer” magazine, December 1888, p. 300.
 “The Letters of H. P. Blavatsky to A.P. Sinnett”, TUP, pp. 118-119.
 “H.P. Blavatsky Collected Writings”, TPH, Volume VII, pp. 53 to 54-C.
 “The Letters of H. P. Blavatsky to A.P. Sinnett”, TUP, Letter LXIII, p. 159.
 “The Letters of H.P. Blavatsky to A.P. Sinnett”, TUP, p. 105.
 “Damodar”, by Sven Eek, p. 611.