Theos-Talk Archives (June 1998 Message tt00031)

June 2nd 1998

Dear Daniel:

As usual your sources are impeccable.  In answer to your
questions, allow me to present in more detail what I said.  Some
of your questions may then be answered insofar as I am able.

I am as puzzled as you are about the conflicting stories and my
own  "reminiscences."  I narrated them as I was made aware of
them.   I recognize the conflicts you write so accurately about.

After comparing the "3rd and REVISED Edition(1893) of the (First
2 Volumes of S D)" with the original (1888), I have often
wondered how many "changes" were introduced into those
manuscripts that were assembled and printed as the "THIRD VOLUME
OF THE S D " by Annie Besant in 1897.  Surmise again.

>From HPB's original typed drafts, uncorrected for printing, to
what we now have printed (as the THIRD VOLUME) -- how many
changes that we know nothing about ?  Also, I bear in mind that
as proofs came back from the printers for correction, HPB had the
habit of adding and changing many phrases.  We lack those in this
case.  This is of course entirely speculative on my part.

As a matter of private speculation I have also wondered what
would have happened had the "Judge Case" never arisen, and
whether the "THIRD VOLUME S D" would have the same appearance had
Judge collaborated with A B in its production.  But that is all
unanswered conjecture.  At least we have the first 2 volumes SD
in their original.

Let me observe here that while it is very interesting to trace
the many ways in which these books and writings have been
handled, historically, we loose valuable time that could be spent
in studying what Theosophy teaches.  I know that I do.
Fortunately, starting from about 18, I began to make notes that I
could go back to, even today, on what I read and studied.  But,
one learns new things every day.  To me the philosophy is of more
value than any amount of historicity.

My reminiscence about the author of those statements concerning
the fate, just before HPB's death, of the typed manuscripts
destined for Volumes 3 and 4 of the S D is quite unclear.  Let me
add that in Bombay, when I was a lad (from age 14 on) I lived in
the same house as Mr. B. P. Wadia did and saw him almost daily.
[ "Aryasangha,"  22 Narayan Dabholkar Rd., Bombay. ]  A stream of
visitors of distinction, old Theosophists, etc., came by, and we
were often invited to "come upstairs," meet them after dinner,
and listen to what they had to say about the times when they knew
and met HPB or Mr. Judge, and others of the Inner Group around
HPB.  As I said I cannot now recall who said that, but the saying
remains imprinted in my mind.  I cannot substantiate it with a
name,  It might have been Alice Cleather, or old John Watkins, or
someone else.

As to Annie Besant having some of the manuscripts, it seems to me
that several of those were published as articles in LUCIFER after
HPB's death, as they were also being considered for use in the
magazine.  I assume that A B had copies as co-editor, and may
have taken some more from HPB's desk when she arrived in London
very shortly after HPB's death ( A B was on ship-board on the
Atlantic when HPB died, returning to London after visiting the
Annual Convention of the American Section at the end of April in
1891, where, as HPB's representative, she delivered HPB's "last
two messages" ) -- or something like that.  And those are just my
surmises.

As to the Wurzburg MSS, was that not what Countess Wachmeister
copied of the early pages (the first draft of the S D) and sent
to Adyar for Subba Row to edit or comment on ?  And is it not
that which so upset S. Row that he refused to go any further.
 see what HPB writes to Sinnett (p. 172 , HPB Letters to APS)
about the revealing of certain ancient Mysteries, held sacred by
Brahmin Initiates,  See also the restrictions under which HPB was
placed, herself, on p. 103-6,of the same book ].  In MAHATMA
LETTERS there are correlating references (to me) to be read on
pp. 203, 263, 310-17 466 top concerning HPB's work and position
vis-a-vis the Mahatmas.

Well, I don't think this will settle much, but here goes.

Best wishes,            Dallas.

> Date: Tuesday, June 02, 1998 8:33 AM
> From: "Daniel H Caldwell" <blafoun@azstarnet.com>
> Subject: More on SD Vol. 3

>W. Dallas TenBroeck wrote on Theos-Talk:
>
>> In "The Negators of Science"  [ LUCIFER, April 1891,  Part 1,
>> ULT Edition of HPB Articles, Vol. 2, p. 80-1) ]  HPB gives a
>> survey of what was intended in Vol. 3.  [ HPB was evidently
not
>> able to complete this as she died May 8th, 1891, shortly after
>> this article was issued. Because she foresaw this, is the
>> probable reason, I think, for the destruction of the
manuscripts
>> making up the 3rd and part of the 4th Volumes of the S D -- as
>> she could not edit them for publication. I was given to
>> understand, many years ago by an old student of HPB, that very
>> shortly before her death, she called in Archibald Keightley
and
>> G.R.S.Mead and asked where the manuscripts for the 3rd and 4th
>> Volumes were.  They showed her a large pile all typed and
ready.
>> She then said that she had received "instructions" to have
them
>> destroyed. They all three set to work and tore them up. This
is a
>> reminiscence, and I have not been able to secure independent
>> verification of this statement made to me.]
>
>Then a few paragraphs later Dallas wrote:
>
>>  Annie Besant, after Mr. Judge's death in 1896, issued in 1897
a
>> "Third Volume of the S D;"  and the material included there
seems
>> to be some of the unedited Manuscripts HPB was working on at
the  time of her death.
>
>
>Daniel Caldwell replies:
>
>Dallas, in the latter paragragh, you write of "some of the
unedited
>Manuscripts."  Which ones??  SD manuscripts?  The destroyed
ones?  Dallas, please tell me what MSS you are speaking about?

==========================================
DALLAS:

SD manuscripts -- may have been several copies -- some with A B,
and the est with A K and G R S M.  What happened to the hand
written MSS ?

==========================================
>
>Dallas, reread what you just wrote concerning Archibald
Keightley
>and G.R.S. Mead.
>
>Then COMPARE that with what they ACTUALLY WROTE in the
following:
>
>"October 29, 1891---Dr. Archibald Keightley wrote in a
>letter to Bertram Keightley (cited by C. Jinarajadasa
>in "Dr. Besant and Mutilation of the Secret Doctrine,"
>Messenger, January 1926, 166):
>
>'There is some talk of entirely reprinting Secret Doctrine
>[Volumes I and II] and of correcting errors
>when the Third Volume is issued.' "
>
>Why would Archibald write this on Oct. 29, 1891,
>if he knew firsthand that
>HPB, Mead and he had already destroyed the Mss of
>vol. III???!!!
>
============================================
DALLAS

I do not know how to answer this, as I said there are too many
blanks and surmises.

===========================================


>Concerning Mead, Robert Gilbert writes the following
>with a quote by Mead:
>
>"Many years later there were persistent allegations that the
>   supposed third and fourth volumes had been suppressed by
vested
>   interests within the Society. The evidence for this was
simply
>   Madame Blavatsky's claims at various times to have completed,
or
>   nearly completed, the extra volumes - but no-one ever saw any
>   finished text and none was ever found. Mead's comment on the
>   allegations was uncompromising: 'On H.P.B.'s decease there
>   remained over no manuscript or typescript S.D. material other
>   than is now found in Vol. III. These pieces, or chapters,
were
>   omitted from the two volumes of the first edition, either
>   because they were thought, by Mme. Blavatsky herself, not
good
>   enough or not sufficiently appropriate to be included.'
>
>Notice Mead's own words.  Mead's words contradict this
>annoynmous story that HPB, Archibald K. and Mead had destroyed
>the SD III MSS.
>
>Note:  In what was quoted above by Gilbert, he makes a statement
>which is misleading:  ". . . no-one ever saw any finished text
>and none was ever found. . . ."
>
>FINISHED text??  What does Gilbert mean by "finished"?  "No-one
>every saw."  When?  Before HPB's death?  After her death?


=========================================
DALLAS:

Another blank space -- surmises ?  Conflict of views.

===========================================
>
>COMPARE what Gilbert wrote with what Annie Besant testified to
>on May 4, 1891:
>
>"There is one other work of hers [HPB's], which I have seen in
>manuscript,
>still unpublished; a third volume of "The Secret Doctrine" which
is now
>being got ready for the press under my own eyes."
>
>This is the manuscript HPB writes about in "The Negators of
Science",
>LUCIFER, April 1891.
>
>Was the manuscript "finished" or "completed" at this
time-period?
>
==============================================
DALLAS

Again -- a blank - a surmise situation -- conflict in views

========================================


>Here is what I wrote in my paper concerning Boris de Zirkoff's
comments
>on
>a "completed" SD Vol III manuscript:
>
>". . . . it is difficult to understand what Boris
>de Zirkoff meant when he wrote (in SD Intro., 71)
>that 'no outright positive or negative answer can be made to
>the oft-repeated question whether a completed Manuscript
>of Volumes III and IV ever existed.' "
>
>"Setting aside de Zirkoff's reference to Volume IV, there
>is no reason to doubt that a manuscript of Volume III existed
>during the last years of HPB's life. Furthermore, had she
>lived, HPB would probably have added and deleted material
>from the manuscript; she would probably have rewritten
>and reedited the material even more. But at the time of her
>death, this manuscript was as 'complete' as HPB could make it.
>What more could be expected?"
>
>And Annie Besant testifies BEFORE HPB'S DEATH that she had
>SEEN this manuscript.
>
>Does anyone ever consult and compare original sources of
information?
>
>Dallas, who was this "old student of HPB"?  Who told him/her
this
>story about HPB, Keightley and Mead destroying the MSS of Volume
III SD?  Was it HPB or Keightley or Mead who told him/her the
story?  Did he/she  get the story 2nd hand or even 3rd hand?
>
=============================================
DALLAS :

>From the way in which it was related to us, it appeared to me to
be most probably "2nd hand"  -- but it was also apparently well
known in the "household" around HPB.  Or so I gathered.  I do not
recall that any questions as to authenticity were made.  Time of
event I would place between 1937 / 1939, before W W II.

============================================

>I prefer to consult the original source materials of which we
have
>an abundance INCLUDING THE ORIGINAL WURZBURG MSS.  The contents
of the
>Wurzburg mss should be compared with the contents of Vol III.
>
>See my article on third volume of SD at
>http://www.azstarnet.com/~blafoun/sdiiimyt.htm  for more
details.
>
==================================================