Theos-Talk Archives (July 1997 Message tt00064)

Re: Errors in the Theos.  Glossary - de Zirkoff and other related
matters

Part 2

by Daniel Caldwell

Mr.  de Zirkoff's article on THE THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY was
entitled "Who Played That Trick on H.P.B.?: The Puzzle of 'The
Theosophical Glossary'."

In his article, Mr.  de Zirkoff does not actually tell us who
played the "trick".

The writers of THE PERENNIAL WISDOM are more specific:

> Research by Boris de Zirkoff.  .  .  indicates that H.P.B.  had
> far less to do with writing this glossary, than previously
> assumed.  According to Mr.  de Zirkoff, after H.P.B.'s death, the
> unfinished manuscript was still too thin for publication,
> therefore the editors added a considerable number of definitions
> from outside sources, without acknowledgement to the readers.
> Sometimes W.  Wynn Westcott, one of the editors, penned his own
> definitions.  These however, are identified by his initials.  .
> ...

Who were the editors? They identify Westcott as one of the
editors.  Unless there are primary source documents I am not
aware of, Westcott was *not* one of the editors.  He was a
*contributor* to the Glossary at HPB's specific request.  In a
document in HPB's own handwriting, she says:

> Kindly helped for a number of Kabalistic terms by W.  Wynn
> Westcott M.B., F.T.S.  Hon.  Magus, Soc.  Ros.  etc.  etc.  [All
> the terms explained in this work by Brother Wynn Westcott are
> invariably signed with his Initials---'W.W.W.']

I will reproduce this document in full in a later "part".

Reading G.R.S.  Mead's January 1892 "PREFACE" to THEOSOPHICAL
GLOSSARY, it would appear that Mead was the sole editor.  And I
guess if a "trick" was played on HPB, it was by G.R.S.  Mead
himself.

In this same preface, Mead tells the reader:

> THE THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY labours under the disadvantage of
> being an almost entirely posthumous work, of which the author
> [HPB] only saw the first thirty-two pages in proof.  This is all
> the more regrettable, for H.P.B., as were her wont, was adding
> considerably to her original copy, and would no doubt have
> increased the volume far beyond its present limits.  .  .  .

Compare Mead's words just quoted with the PERENNIAL WISDOM quote:

> According to Mr.  de Zirkoff, after H.P.B.'s death, the
> unfinished manuscript was still too thin for publication,
> therefore the editors added a considerable number of definitions
> from outside sources, without acknowledgement to the readers.

If we believe a "trick" is involved here, then Mr.  Mead is the
trickster and is guilty of lying, etc.

And in the third paragraph of the Preface, Mead explicitly says:

> H.P.B. desired also to express her *special* indebtedness, as far
> as the tabulation of facts is concerned, to the SANSKRIT-CHINESE
> DICTIONARY by Eitel, THE HINDU CLASSICAL DICTIONARY of
> Dowson, THE VISHNU PURANA of Wilson, and the ROYAL MASONIC
> CYCLOPAEDIA  of Kenneth Mackenzie.

Asterisks added.

Now did HPB herself extract material from these four sources and
incorporate them into THE THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY or did Mr.  Mead
do it and then (as part of the "trick" scheme) simply attribute
the above words to HPB?

As Mr.  de Zirkoff points out, there are 2, 767 distinct terms in
THE THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY.

William Emmette Coleman, one of HPB's hostile critics, writes (in
1895) as follows on THE THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY:

> The whole of this book, except the garblings, distortions and
> fabrications of Madame Blavatsky scattered through it, was copied
> from other books.  The explanations and definitions of 425 names
> and terms were copied from Dowson's HINDU CLASSICAL DICTIONARY.
> From Wilson's VISHNU PURANA were taken those of 242 terms; from
> Eitel's HANDBOOK OF CHINESE BUDDHISM, 179; and from Mackenzie's
> MASONIC CYCLOPAEDIA, 164.  .  .  .

425 + 242 + 179 + 164 = 1010

According to Coleman, the explanations and definitions of 1,010
terms were copied from these 4 books.

What did Mr.  de Zirkoff say about what was copied from these 4
books?

In Mr.  de Zirkoff's unpublished notes [found in the archives of
the late Walter A.  Carrither's Jr.] the following totals are
found:

"From Dowson (D) 414" terms
"From McKenzie (about) 100" terms
"From Eitel.  .  .  .  125" terms

In BdZ's notes, there is no total for the number of
definitions from Wilson's VISHNU PURANA.

Compare the totals of Coleman and de Zirkoff.

Using Coleman's total, we find that more than 1/3 of the
definitions in THE THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY are from these 4 books
by Dowson, McKenzie, Eitel, and Wilson.

Coleman accuses Blavatsky of plagiarism of these terms.  Coleman
also accuses HPB of massive plagiarism in her OTHER works.  See
Coleman's article entitled "The Sources of Madame Blavatsky's
Writings", pp.  23 et seq in Solovyov's A MODERN PRIESTESS OF
ISIS (1895).

I would guess (?) that Mr.  de Zirkoff would attribute these
"appropriations" to the "trick" of G.R.S.  Mead.


But Mr.  Mead specifically tells the readers of THE THESOPHICAL
GLOSSARY:

 "H.P.B. desired . . . to express her *special* indebtedness, as far
as the tabulation of facts is concerned, to the SANSKIRT-CHINESE
DICTIONARY by Eitel, THE HINDU CLASSICAL DICTIONARY of
Dowson, THE VISHNU PURANA of Wilson, and the ROYAL MASONIC
CYCLOPAEDIA  of Kenneth Mackenzie."  Asterisks added.

Having studied THE THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY and compared it
with HPB's other writings, I am of the opinion that when compiling
the THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY, HPB used various books as
reference works from which she extracted "the tabulation of facts"
and then added in numerous instances (what Mr. de Zirkoff characterized
as) "an occult interpretation" of these facts.

In his *published* article Mr. de Zirkoff writes:

> From such a statement it would appear that The Theosophical
> Glossary is a work mainly by H.  P.  Blavatsky, with a certain
> number of quotations from a fairly small number of works.  This
> impression has become pretty well established in the Theosophical
> Movement, and several editions of this work have been published
> by various Theosophical Organizations.
>
> The facts, however, differ considerably.
>
> A careful analysis of the definitions and of the probable
> sources from which they were borrowed, has disclosed that out of
> the 2,767 definitions, a minimum of 2,212 have been taken from
> the works of a large number of scholars, either verbatim or with
> very minor alterations, and with no acknowledgment whatsoever; in
> a few cases a line or two has been added, giving an occult
> interpretation probably by H.P.B.  herself; such instances are
> very few.

Take note of the latter part of what is written above:

> .  .  .  in a few cases a line or two has been added, giving an
> occult interpretation probably by H.P.B.  herself; such instances
> are very few.

Consulting the photocopy of Mr.  de Zirkoff's copy of THE
THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY (found among Mr.  Carrither's papers and
books), I find that this statement by Mr.  de Zirkoff is off the
mark.  In fact, the word "few" as used by Mr.  de Zirkoff should
be replaced with the word "numerous".

There are numerous definitions found in the THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY
where you find a "tabulation of facts" from some authority and to
this Madame Blavatsky has added anywhere from several lines to
whole paragraphs of "occult interpretation." Take for example the
entry on "Scarabaeus" on pp.  293-294 of THE THEOSOPHICAL
GLOSSARY.

Apparently H.P.B.  gives extracts from three authorities (Rouge,
Maspero, and Deveria) quoted in Bonwick's EGYPTIAN BELIEF AND
MODERN THOUGHT, pp.  73-75.  To each of these quotes, she adds
her "occult interpretation".

Take another one on p.  285 of the T.G.  under the entry for
"Sakwala".  The first 4 or 5 lines are extracted from R.  Spence
Hardy's EASTERN MONACHISM, p.  4 et seq and the remaining text
for this entry was apparently written by H.P.B.  giving the
"esoteric" interpretation.

I could give numerous other examples.

I find approximately 350 terms (in whole or part) identified by
Boris de Zirkoff as being from H.P.  Blavatsky's pen.  This count
*excludes* the terms extracted from ISIS UNVEILED (30?), THE
SECRET DOCTRINE (25?), or the terms (217) in the glossary
published also in the 2nd edition of the KEY.

To be continued in Part 3. . . .