Theos-Talk Archives (September 1998 Message tt00109)

Eldon,

I think you have a very balanced, commonsense and correct view
concerning the matters referred to below.  Thank you for your insights
and comments.

Daniel

Eldon B Tucker wrote:
>
> 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