Theos-Talk Archives (November 1997 Message tt00386)

At 03:20 PM 11/22/97 -0500, Bart Lidofsky wrote:
>NOTE THAT I AM NOT DIRECTLY QUOTING ANYBODY HERE. ALTHOUGH I HAVE SOME
>INSIDE KNOWLEDGE, ANYTHING I WRITE HERE SHOULD NOT BE PRESUMED TO HAVE
>ANYTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING THAT MICHAEL GOMES, JOHN ALGEO, OR, FOR
>THAT MATTER, ANYBODY BUT MYSELF HAS SAID (except, of course, the quotes
>from Nicholas to which I am responding).
>
>Nicholas Weeks wrote:
>>
>> Sometime back I was able to dip into the MS of Michael Gomes' abridgment
>> of ISIS UNVEILED. Now the actual book is in my hands. The hope is that
>> this popularized version will reach people that the full 1200 page
>> edition did not. It will I am sure. May they also pursue HPB's writings
>> much further.
>
> It is my impression that the volume was created in the hope that it
>would serve as an introduction to the real thing. From those at the NYTS
>who have read it (we just put in an order for 30 more copies, as the
>first order sold out almost immediately), it gives the concepts from the
>original with great clarity.
>
>> Since I still have only dipped into the book, my first impression may be way
>> off the mark -- I do hope so. But the publisher, John Algeo,
>
> John Algeo was the publisher's rep, not the publisher, which was the
>Theosophical Publishing House.
>
 That may be so technically on paper. John as elected National President
of TSA has total authority and responsibility for all aspects of TPH. He has
the total authority to hire and fire all the staff at TPH. Even though one
may say that there is a Board of Directors etc., all the board is doing is
rubber stamping what John's decisions.

>> was rather
>> too much involved in the actual editing of Gomes' work. Or perhaps there
>> was not enough cooperation between the two. At any rate, one example
>> of, at least, poor communication, may embarrass Gomes or Algeo or both.
>> Perhaps a future printing could resolve it.
>>
>> The second volume of ISIS was titled THEOLOGY. In Gomes' MS it was so
>> given.
>
> You had access to Michael's original manuscript? I am surprised, but as
>the whole thing was done in Microsoft Word, it certainly is not
>impossible.
>
> From my understanding (and, once again, I am not quoting anybody
>specifically here, and nothing I am writing should be attributed to
>anybody other than myself), Michael did a literal abridgement; everyword
>in his original manuscript was directly from Blavatsky. As far as I can
>tell, all John Algeo did was, in a few cases, modernize some of the
>language used. As John Algeo is recognized secularly as one of the
>world's foremost experts on the English language, we would have been
>hard-pressed to find anybody more qualified to do so. I, myself, have
>found a few spots where I had to look up in the original to see if they
>matched up, and am not 100% sure that what John Algeo did was a good
>idea. On the other hand, I have read 19th century English literature
>extensively, as well as occult writings of the time, and am therefore
>more familiar with the language of the time than most.
>
> Bart Lidofsky

Thanks for the feedback. We will see how the public response to the book is.
It may take some time to see and evaluate the response.

mkr


>
>
>