Theos-Talk Archives (October 1998 Message tt00074)

Oct 22 1998

    RE:  Source of the Theosophy Company edition of
    THE VOICE OF THE SILENCE

In 1893 Mr. W. Q. Judge published in New York a reprint of this
book.  I have also seen a reprint of this dated 1899.

When he did this he made some changes as compared to the London
printed original editions of 1889 and 1893 (DONE IN RESET TYPE
AND IN A LARGER FORMAT) of that book.

The Theosophy Company when it reprinted the VOICE in the 1920s
followed the edition that Mr. Judge had issued in 1893.  It is
different from the original 1889 edition in many ways. And
although I have not verified Dr. Stokes (of the O.E.Library
Critic) claim that there are over 600 changes, it may be fair to
assume that is correct.

I had no time this morning to thoroughly proof-read these two
books in comparison with the T Co. edition.  What little checking
that I did, using the main references of differences that Dan has
so kindly provided, showed that Mr. Judge had made these in his
edition.  Dan's comments insofar as they are accurate (as I have
not checked all of them) stand.

Remains the matter of meaning.  I deliberately asked this
question of Dan so that he would consider it.  He has confined
himself to the physical aspect alone.  Fair enough.
I append some further comments/answers in the body of his letter
reproduced below.

Dallas

> From: D.Caldwell/M.Graye
> Sent:	Tuesday, October 20, 1998 11:12 PM
> Subject: Dallas on the Theosophy Company's edition of THE VOICE OF THE SILENCE

W. Dallas TenBroeck wrote:

>RE: VOICE OF THE SILENCE
>
> Dear "Augoeides,"
>
> I would strongly recommend that you verify the allegations for
> yourself and see if they are correct.  And, at the same time
ask
> yourself if there is any change in MEANING.  Although I asked
> this question of Dan, he has not answered it directly, but has
> pointed out errors of transcription.  What Dan has written is
> textually accurate - as he always is on such matters - no
> arguments there.  And, there never have been.  That is the
strict
> application of the "Eye Doctrine."


Daniel Caldwell replies:

Thank you Dallas for your reply.  I would be most happy to answer
the
question about whether "the meaning has been changed or not".
But this
was NOT the issue I was bringing up in my earlier emails and it
was NOT
your original point at the beginning of this discussion last
month.

One of your original points last month was as follows.  I quote
your
words concerning editions of Blavatsky's writings:

> I prefer a facsimile edition - no question of authenticity.
> Comments and changes can be put in an ADDENDUM for students to
> consult.
>
> Verbatim editions are acceptable, if truly and accurately
> VERBATIM - no changes or emendations or interpolations.  Any
> such can be handled through an ADDENDUM.

Please, Dallas, notice your own words about "verbatim": NO
CHANGES OR
EMENDATIONS OR INTERPOLATIONS.

Dallas, in my email of a few days ago, [ I append that email at
the END
of these comments. ] I showed by quoting chapter and verse that
there
WERE (1) changes, (2) emendations and (3) interpolations in the
VOICE as
published by the Theosophy Company.

Whether these "corrections", etc. change the meaning or not is
NOT
really the issue. The ONLY issue I was addressing is that an
"editorial
hand" has been at work on HP Blavatsky's original text.  Someone
has
taken upon himself/herself to *alter and correct* HPB's text.
And some
of the changes are so trivial that one should ask:  "Why even
make the
changes in the first place??"  But some of the changes are
significant.
Apparently G.R.S. Mead and Boris de Zirkoff are not the only
persons who
have had the editorial "itch" to change and correct HPB's text.

Boris de Zirkoff in his "Collected Writings" edition, at least,
tells
the reader that he is making certain types of changes.  Nothing
is found
in the Theosophy Company's edition of the Voice to alert the
reader that
hundreds of changes have been made to HPB's original edition.

The only reason I bring up Boris de Zirkoff's name in this
discussion is
that many ULT associates, and even ULT "officials", have been
quite
vocal in their criticisms of Mr. de Zirkoff's editing and
"correcting"
of HPB's writings.  But I guess it's . . . okay with you (and
other ULT
associates?) that the Theosophy Company has made more than 600
changes
in HPB's original text of the VOICE??????

Again I repeat your previous remark and append a few more
comments:

>  I would strongly recommend that you verify the allegations for
> yourself and see if they are correct.  And, at the same time
ask
> yourself if there is any change in MEANING.  Although I asked
> this question of Dan, he has not answered it directly, but has
> pointed out errors of transcription.  What Dan has written is
> textually accurate - as he always is on such matters - no
> arguments there.  And, there never have been.  That is the
strict
> application of the "Eye Doctrine."


So, Dallas, what are you trying to tell "Augoeides"?  Are you
trying to
tell him/her that it is okay with you if an editor changes HPB's
words/text as long as the editor doesn't change the meaning? If
this is
what you are attempting to convey, then what has happened to YOUR
September 1998 "standard" of preferring facsimile or verbatim
copies of
HPB's works?

As far as I know, verbatim means "word for word" and by this
definition,
the TC edition of the VOICE is definitely NOT verbatim.

Would you now prefer that "verbatim" be defined as "having the
same
meaning"??



Dallas

As above stated the source of the changes has been located.


Verbatim is verbatim.  Facsimile is facsimile.  As I said no
argument there.


Meaning is of course another issue.







Again you write that Dan "has pointed out errors of
transcriptions."
No Dallas, this is not accurate.  I have pointed out what can be
reasonably considered as DELIBERATE changes and corrections.
[SEE THE
DETAILED EXAMPLES APPENDED BELOW.]



Dallas


To be quite fair to readers in this matter it is my opinion that
you could include, if you will, your opinion as to alterations of
MEANING, IF THERE ARE ANY SIGNIFICANT ONES THAT YOU HAVE FOUND.





Now one of my correspondents in private email wrote:

"Now here is a surprise.  Do you know the TPH Wheaton has a 1991
[1992]
centenary edition of VOS?. . . When I first saw this edition and
noticed
its differences from TC version I assumed TC was the original. .
. . Now
it may turn out that TC made changes and TPH has the original!
Wouldn't
that be a change!"

In comparing these two versions, I find that the TPH Wheaton
edition has
only a few corrections.  For example, in the original 1889 VOS,
one
finds the word "acking" which is, no doubt, by the context of the
sentence, a "typo" for "lacking".  This is corrected in the TPH
Wheaton
edition.  IN FACT, IN REALITY, the TPH Wheaton edition is much
more
faithful to the original 1889 VOS than the TC edition with its
600+
changes.

So Dallas, let me pose a question for you:

In light of what you now know about the TC edition with 600+
changes, do
you still PREFER that TC edition or would you be willing to adopt
a
better edition like the TPH 1992 Wheaton edition mentioned by my
email
correspondent?



Dallas

The best course is to state from the outset exactly what is being
done.  That lets the reader decide on the matter of his reference
and reliance.


I deliberately introduced MEANING since for real students of the
VOICE that is an important issue.


Have you written to Theosophy Company on this matter ?


Dallas






I APPEND BELOW MY EMAIL FROM SATURDAY IN WHICH I DOCUMENT SOME OF
THE
CHANGES BETWEEN THE 2 EDITIONS UNDER DISCUSSION.

> Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:49:31 -0700
> From: "Daniel H Caldwell" <blafoun@azstarnet.com>
> Subject: Theosophy Company's 1987 edition of THE VOICE OF THE SILENCE

SUBJECT:  Theosophy Company's 1987 edition of THE VOICE OF THE
SILENCE

Of late, I have spent some time comparing the 1987 edition of the
VOICE
published by The Theosophy Company (CA) with the original 1889
edition
of HPB's classic.  As pointed out in one of my earlier emails,
this
Theosophy Company edition (first published 1928) is NOT verbatim
with
the original VOICE.  In fact, the TC edition has more than 600
changes
and "corrections".

Here are several examples of these changes:

On p. 73 of the original VOICE, HPB wrote:

>  The "great Master" is the term used by *lanoos* or
>   chelas to indicate one's "Higher Self."

The Theosophy Company's 1987 edition reads:

>  The "great Master" is the term used by
>  Lanoos or Chelas to indicate the HIGHER SELF.

As one can see, there are several changes in this one sentence
including deleting a word and adding another.


Again, HPB in the original wrote on pp. 74-75:

>  It stands generally for the 100 years or "age" of Brahma, the
>  duration of a Kalpa or a period of 4,320,000,000 years.

The Theosophy Company's edition reads (p. 5):

>  It stands generally for the 100 years or "age" of Brahma, the
>  duration of a Maha-Kalpa or a period of 311,040,000,000,000
years.


Again, the 1889 edition, p. 78:

>  These mystic sounds or the melody heard by the ascetic . . . .

The TC edition changes this to (p. 19):

>  The mystic sounds, or the melody, heard by the ascetic . . . .


Again, the original VOICE, p. 87:

>  *Upadya* is a spiritual perceptor, a Guru.

The TC editions reads (p. 49):

>  *Upadhyaya* is a spiritual preceptor, a Guru.


Once, again, the original VOICE reads on p. 82:

>  Bodhidharma called them in China---from whence the names
reached
>  Tibet---the *Tsung-men* (esoteric) and *Kiau-men* (exoteric
school).

The TC edition changes this passage to read:  (p. 25)

>  The *Bodhidharma*, Wisdom Religion in China---whence the names
reached
>  Tibet---called them the *Tsung-men* (Esoteric) and *Kiau-men*
(Esoteric
>  school).


On pp. x-xi of the original, one finds the following:

>  . . . (*Bhagavatgita II*. 70). . . .

>  . . . (*Bhagavatgita II*. 27). . . .

The TC edition changes the spelling of this Hindu text and
deletes the
numbers  "70" and "27".

*Also the spelling of numerous Sanskrit words are changed
throughout the
TC edition when compared with the original 1889 edition of the
VOICE.*

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


Over the years, The Theosophy Company has prided itself on
providing photographic reprints of HPB's original works.
Notice what this publisher writes in their 1947 edition
of THE SECRET DOCTRINE:

"With the present printing of THE SECRET DOCTRINE, The Theosophy
Company continues its function of providing students and
inquirers
with unaltered editions of the original literature of the
Theosophical
Movement. . . . this edition is a perfect facsimile of the
original
edition and can be relied upon as such."

And earlier in the same "Publishers' Preface", pains were taken
to
point out:

"Besides the original edition of 1888---the only one authorized
by Madame Blavatsky---several other editions of this work have
appeared.  One of these, the so-called 'Third and Revised
Edition' of 1893, is marred by many thousands of alterations,
some
of them trivial, some actual mutilations of the original text."

And this preface went on to say the following about another
edition
of the SD:

"Except for gratuitous 'corrections' of the author's
[Blavatsky's]
Sanskrit scholarship. . . . this edition is virtually an accurate
reproduction of the original text.  Its exact authenticity,
however,
cannot be determined without laborious comparison with the
original."

How much of this (Theosophy Company's) "Publishers' Preface"
could be
equally applied to their own edition of THE VOICE OF THE
SILENCE??!!

Why are there 600+ changes in this Theosophy Company's edition?




I believe this is now made clear.

No claim was made by T. Co. regarding their issuance of the VOICE
as to its being either verbatim or facsimile.  I agree that it is
unfortunate that the source was not mentioned.

I am sorry it has taken so long for me to discover the source of
the changes made.

Dallas	Oct 22 1998

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