Theos-Talk Archives (September 1998 Message tt00083)

Paul:

[speaking of the Boris de Zirkoff edition of THE SECRET DOCTRINE,
writing to Tony]

>Why change/alter the original SD in the first place?  What
>logical/rational/reasonable sense does it make for anyone to
>do this? Some might describe changing/altering an author's
>work after they are 'dead and buried', without their permission,
>as criminal.

There are a few reasons why I prefer to use Boris' edition of
THE SECRET DOCTRINE.

First is the readability of the text. The lengthy quotes in the
SD are typographically set apart from the body text, making it
much easier to tell when HPB is writing and when it's someone
she's quoting. This is not altering the author's words, but
just a typographical facelift.

Second is the accuracy in citations and in cited materials. It's
a matter of scholarship, not one of altering an author's words,
to go back to source materials, completing citations and correcting
quotes. There's a degree of human error in setting up a book, and
this helps eliminate the part than we can check up on.

There are other minor changes. In about a year of attending
the Mailbu ULT SD class, taking my Boris edition SD, there's
only one change I've encountered that I recall. There was a
place where in the original SD it mentions the number "40"
in connection with Egyptian mythology; Boris changed it to
"42", which is what I've heard it should be. I'm not making
a case that these changes are good or bad ...

It is nice to have a portion of the original SD mss as an
appendix. It shows an earlier draft of the Stanzas of Dyzan.
The final form of "mind was naught, for there were no Ah-Hi
to contain it," originally read "mind was naught, for there
where no Dhyani-Chohans to contain it," for instance. Having
the two drafts for comparison provides, I think, additional
light on the Stanzas.

-- Eldon