Theos-Talk Archives (September 1998 Message tt00108)

Paul:

>> There are a few reasons why I prefer to use Boris' edition of
>> THE SECRET DOCTRINE.
>>
>> First is the readability of the text.
>
>Path of least resistance?  "Where there is no effort, there is
>no merit".

The purpose of the typography is to make the book as lucid,
as clear, as easy to read as possible. The materials being
communicated is sufficiently difficult, I think, that there
was no need to intentionally make it more difficult by
awkward typesetting. There was either an attempt to say
things clearly, or to refer to them veiled under one or more
of the Seven Keys.

The fine details of setting up a book are often handled
by the publisher, and the author may approve galley proofs,
correcting for textual errors, but issues of typography
themselves aren't generally handled by the author.

I can see a new edition of the SD sometime in the next
decade, with resizable text and pages, hyperlinks, and
embedded indexes -- something that is computerized. In
my view, this will enhance the readability and usefulness
of the work. There will have to be further advances in
screens and portable computers before the reading will
be as comfortable as with printed books, but it's
only a matter of time ...

>> 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.
>
>It is not, therefore, the same as the ORIGINAL (as published when HPB was
>alive and OVERSEEN BY MASTERS).  There are no two ways about this, Eldon.

If the pagination hasn't changed, and the words on the
page are the same, the materials are the same. The only
difference someone might argue would be if they wanted
to do numerology on the words and lines on the page,
assuming there was some special meaning to how many
words appear on any particular line. In this regard,
I'd consider the layout accidental, not intentional,
just as there may be no special significance to where
the line breaks as I'm typing this email or you in
typing your reply.

Since the Internet has started to grow, and with the
widespread availability of computers, there is a new
model of publishing, as exemplified by HTML. The
typesize, position on the page, pagination, etc. --
things affecting the appearance of a page of a book --
are now becoming fluidic, determined to an extend
by the preferences of (and software used by) the reader.
How quotes appear on the page with vary with individual
preference in the future.

>> 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.
>
>We can expect, under usual circumstances, a degree of "human error".  The
>question is: was the publication/production of SD "usual"?  No. Was it
>subject to "human error"?  Let us examine:
>
>It is said that Masters 'corrected' MSS during the night etc..  Do we think
>They were any less capable, would have been any less active, during the
>typographic settings for the original print run?  Would They have wasted
>valuable time/energy/occult power 'correcting' hand written/precipitated MSS
>only to allow failings/errors to creep in during the type set?  Hardly makes
>sense.

My impression was that they were making sure that what was
written was correct, as far as it went, making some things
more clear, embellishing some of the writings, and perhaps
veiling things that were too clear, or went too far. I
don't think that they were checking the quotes for accuracy
and intentionally leaving in errors in the citations for
deep occult significance. The errors in citations were do,
I think, to human error, in the process of coping them, or
typesetting them, or proofreading the typeset pages.

>> 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 ...
>
>"...a very minute difference may make the emblem or symbol differ widely in
>its meaning." (SD, I, 306).  See the HUGE difference in symbols on pages 4/5
>of original SD when compared to other editions.  One small example: the
>original positioning of these symbols is group of 3, group of 4, group of 5.
>Compare 3(1)4(1)5; Pi; ratio of diameter of circle to its circumference; 3 x
>4 x 5 = 60; triangle, square, pentagram etc. etc..  See the keynote.  What
>happens if this is changed/altered?  Seriously, Eldon, what happens?  What
>happens if you add/deduct a note or two here and there to Beathoven's 5th
>Symphony?  Think about it.

It's been a year now at the Malibu class, as I read in
Boris' edition and others read aloud from the facsimile
edition, and I'm still waiting for some glaring errors
to emerge, something to make me hold suspect the book.
I've also been attending another SD class by the Los
Angeles Lodge [Adyar], and likewise haven't come across
anything that seems bad in the Boris edition.

I think that because of his in-depth familiarity with
HPB and her writings, in a lifelong process of compiling
the Collected Writings of HPB, Boris de Zirkoff was
perhaps the most qualified person to review her materials
for possible corrections. If you've found significant
errors in his SD edition, you should compile a list of
them for the publisher, so that the errors could be
reviewed for possible correction in a future printing.

Best,

-- Eldon