Theos-Talk Archives (September 1998 Message tt00257)

Wes,

Thanks for you email below.  Also thanks for reemphasizing my major
points.  And I appreciate your own views.

Daniel


Wes Amerman wrote:
>
> On September 18, Daniel Caldwell wrote:
>
> But the important question is: "Why did the 'editor' of the Theosophy
> Company edition decide to make changes, then went ahead and made the
> changes, and did NOT alert readers to those changes (however minor or
> insignificant that editor or you may deem the changes)?"
>
> In light of your own words, the Theosophy Company edition is certainly
> NOT a facsimile of the orginal VOICE. And this edition is NOT a "truly
> and accurately VERBATIM" edition since there are "changes or
> emendations." Furthermore, the Theosophy Company's edition contains
> changes and emendations but the reader is not told this. How many ULT
> associates currently know that this edition is "edited" and "changed"
> from the original 1889 edition?
>
> Dear Daniel, Dallas and Others,
>
> As a 'lurker' on this list who hasn't the time to contribute on a
> regular basis, I have followed with interest this somewhat convoluted
> series of arguments. Daniel, I especially appreciate your
> contributions, as you point out the illogic in the thinking of students
> who will accept only an 'original edition' from one publisher, but allow
> without comment a version with 'minor or insignificant' changes from
> another.
>
> Theosophy Company obviously did the same thing with the Voice that
> Boris de Zirkoff and others have done with other works--edit the text to
> make it more readable. Frankly, I am grateful to all the theosophical
> publishers for making facsimile/verbatim/accurate editions of basic
> theosophic texts available.
>
> I performed the 'experiments' you suggested the other day, and found
> that, despite the minor changes made in the Theosophy Company edition of
> the Voice of the Silence, it 'read' true to the original. I agree--TC
> should have said something about minor editing! ('665 "changes in
> punctuation, italics, quotation marks, capitals, spelling of Sanskrit
> words, omission of the important diacritical marks over the vowels, and
> others" in the current edition of the Voice issued by The Theosophy
> Company' is a bit much to go without comment!) I am one of those ULT
> Associates who did not know that the TC edition of the Voice has been
> "edited" and "changed." Perhaps that can be corrected in the next
> printing. (Hhmmm, 1928, then 1987, we'll need another printing about
> 2046.....) Or, perhaps they will simply choose to sell the TUP
> 'facsimile' edition?
>
> But, no matter. Most readers of Shakespeare don't have access to
> original Folios of his work, either, and it still survives. Slight
> editing over 400 years has done little to change the meaning, value or
> availability of his plays. More important has been the changes in
> language over the centuries, but that is another story. Come on,
> Dallas, let's admit TC made a mistake, admit the value of verbatim/
> slightly edited editions of the S.D. (like deZirkoff's) and move on.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Wes Amerman