Theos-Talk Archives (August 2001 Message tt00025)

Subject: What did Dallas Tenbroeck really mean by using the word
"verbatim"?

Over the last several years on the Internet's public Theosophical 
forums, Dallas Tenbroeck has made numerous statements about "verbatim"
or "accurate verbatim" reprints of H.P. Blavatsky's and W.Q. Judge's
original writings. Here are just three examples from numerous 
statements made by Dallas on this subject:

-------------------------------------------------

(1) "During the last years of his life, from 1912 to 1919 Crosbie
edited the magazine THEOSOPHY. . . In those pages he reprinted most 
of the original articles and answers to questions which HPB and Judge 
has printed originally in THEOSOPHIST, LUCIFER, and PATH 
magazines. . . . Those articles have been made into books as accurate 
verbatim reprints of the originals, and are made available by ULT."

-------------------------------------------------

(2) "Most of the articles of H.P.B. and Judge and other students had 
gone out of print. Verbatim reprints of these were then issued in 
the magazine THEOSOPHY."

-------------------------------------------------

(3) ". . . THEOSOPHY CO. has done a verbatim reprint of the 1889 
edition [of the Voice of the Silence]. There exists a facsimile 
edition - but I do not know who issued it . . . .

--------------------------------------------------

At one point several years ago, I asked Dallas about 
his "preferences" and "recommendations" concerning originals, 
facsimiles of originals, verbatim reprints, edited reprints, etc. of 
Madame Blavatsky's writings.

He wrote the following most important reply:

----------------------------------------------------

(4) "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."

----------------------------------------------------

Looking at the above statements (1), (2) and (3) from Dallas' pen, 
one might ponder on Dallas' definition of the word "verbatim".

His statement (4) above gives his view on the meaning of "verbatim". 
A verbatim reprint would have 

NO changes
NO emendations
NO interpolations

made to the original text.


I give below from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary (online),
some definitions of these key words used by Dallas:

verbatim --- in the exact words : word for word

to emend --- to correct usually by textual alterations

emendation --- an alteration designed to correct or improve

interpolate --- to alter or corrupt (as a text) by inserting new or 
foreign matter

>From these definitions, one can plainly see that a verbatim edition 
would be "in the exact words" of HPB as found in the her original 
editions. No textual alterations would be found in a verbatim 
edition. No corrections would be made. No insertion of new words or 
matter would be in a "truly and accurately" reprint of HPB's works.

When Dallas first gave the above definition in statement (4) I 
immediately thought of the "verbatim editions" of ISIS UNVEILED, KEY 
TO THEOSOPHY and VOICE OF THE SILEENCE currently published by 
Theosophical University Press of Pasadena, California.

This publisher has RE-typeset the texts from the original editions of 
these works. TUP's INTENT has been to produce exact "word for word " 
reproductions of HPB's texts. Therefore, no changes were 
intentionally introduced into the text. No "corrections" were made in
spelling of words, punctuation or alleged errors. 

However, some unintentional changes may have been introduced in this 
laborious process of typesetting. 

The above definition of "verbatim" as found in Dallas' statement (4) 
and as also found in the dictionary definitions are repeatedly 
confirmed by Dallas in many of his other postings over many years. I 
give below a good sample of these additional statements by Dallas. 
His comments corroborate the above statements concerning the meaning 
of "verbatim".

--------------------------------------------------------------------

(5) "In the final editing of the SD HPB (1888) was assisted by a
number of persons and it is quite possible that some erros [errors] in
proof reading, etc... have crept in. But that does not give
anyone the right to change what she put her signature to. If
such errors are detected, then out of respect for her and the two
Masters who gave their certificate of co-authorship to that work,
I would say that no one ought to 'edit' those, without due
warning at every change to readers, by suitable foot-notes -- yet
we find that by 1893 a 'third and Reveised Edition of the SD was
issued with over 40,000 alterations, UNMARKED, as compared to the
original 1888 edition."

----------------------------------------------

(6) ". . . when people insert their 'corrections' unmarked into the
original text they are taking a liberty with that original. If
they do find some valuable changes that ought to be considered, a
list in an ADDENDUM would be a far more suitable way of recording
those and offering them for the consideration of succeeding waves
of students and seekers."

---------------------------------------------

(7) "Publish the original as ORIGINAL.

"Put in an Appendix and therein list those changes that study an
scholarship reveal to be necessary (?) alterations. Give the
reason why and the source to be checked by the student for
accuracy."

-----------------------------------------------

(8) "All changes or scholarly findings ought to find place in an
ADDENDUM to the original text, so that all can be reviewed by the
student.

"No one likes to find that someone else has interposed their
thinking (however learned) between himself and the original.
That is the height of presumption, in my esteem."

--------------------------------------------------

(9) Concerning "all reprints" of HPB's writings, Dallas wrote:

". . . . LEAVE THE ORIGINAL TEXT UNCHANGED, but
place 'Bullets' or some other markers in the
margins, and in an ADDENDUM, page by page, add their comments and
proposed changes. That would be fair to future students, and
also raise their personal integrity higher - but what has
happened, although irreversible, need not be perpetuated
hereafter."

------------------------------------------------

(10) "I am satisfied that there are changes [in later editions]
and whether they are good or bad, whether they amplify or detract, is 
not the problem, PROVIDING THEY ARE IDENTIFIED, so that trusting 
student can know whether that was what HPB wrote OR NOT."

----------------------------------------------

(11) "If you wish I can give you as an example the little book that
the Adyar Theosophical Publishing House issued under H.P.Blavatsky's
name as PRACTICAL OCCULTISM It is one of the articles she wrote.
If you have a copy then compare it with the same article you have
reprinted by the U.L.T. in OCCULTISM OR RAJA-YOGA. The U.L.T.
is verbatim from H.P.Blavatsky's original article -- remember
proof reading it myself years ago. The ADYAR version has been
heavily edited. . . .

"In U.L.T. I don't have to worry -- the originals are available on a
reliable basis . . . . Personally I would rather deal with 
H.P.Blavatsky's 'mistakes' than with those created by others who have 
had the temerity to believe they knew better than she did, and had 
the audacity to introduce changes which she did not authorize. . . ."

-------------------------------------------------

In light of some of the above statements and the STANDARD Dallas has 
enunciated innumerable times, I asked Dallas several years ago if he 
would please tell his readers what editions of HPB's works he 
preferred and recommended.

To my question, he listed his preferences and recommendations
including the following words about HPB's VOICE OF THE SILENCE:

". . . THEOSOPHY CO. has done a verbatim reprint of the 1889 edition 
[of the Voice of the Silence]. There exists a facsimile edition - 
but I do not know who issued it . . . ."

Dallas' preference and recommendation of the edition of the VOICE 
published by the Theosophy Company completely puzzled and baffled 
me. I knew from my own research that numerous changes and 
emendations had been introduced into this Theosophy Company ed. of 
HPB's classic when compared with the original 1889 ed.

How could Dallas call this TC edition "a verbatim reprint of the 1889
edition." especially in light of his many statements quoted earlier 
in this posting?

When I publicly pointed out these observations, Dallas wrote back at 
one point:

"I looked up in Webster's dictionary the meaning of 'Verbatim.'
It says : 'word for word, in the same words.' . . .

"I have in the past checked the T. Co. edition with the original
1889 VOICE, of which I have a copy autographed by HPB, (that I
purchased in 1964 from John Watkins in London) and found it to be
indeed 'word by word, in the same words.' "

I replied at some point that Dallas was certainly in error about this
TC edition being verbatim ["word by word, in the same words"]
with the original.

But in two later emails, Dallas admitted that certain kinds of 
changes had indeed been made.

". . . it is quite clear to me that the T. Co. edition of the text of 
the VOICE has changes in format, punctuation, numbering, footnotes, 
and even in the spelling of some of the "foreign" words (as 
diacritical marks were not used). No argument there."

This seemed quite puzzling to me in light of his previous use of the 
term "verbatim".

I was even more "dumbfounded" that Dallas was still recommending to 
new students and inquirers this Theosophy Company edition in which 
not only the changes, emendations, corrections and interpolations 
were to be found but in addition nothing in this TC edition indicated
that changes had actually been made. No publisher's or editor's Note 
telling the reader that corrections, etc. had been made to HPB's 
original text was to found anywhere in the Theosophy Company 
edition. In other words, all these changes were UNMARKED to use a 
word Dallas likes to use.

Had not Dallas written before in clear and unmistakable terms on this
very point of UMARKED editing as well as to even more important 
ethical issues?

Here are just a few excerpts from Dallas' pen already quoted earlier 
in this email relevant to the ethical dimension:

"If such errors are detected [in HPB's original SECRET DOCTRINE], 
then OUT OF RESPECT for her and the two Masters who gave their 
certificate of co-authorship to that work, I would say that no one 
ought to 'edit' those, without due warning at every change to 
readers, by suitable foot-notes." Caps added.

". . . when people insert their 'corrections' unmarked into the 
original text they are TAKING A LIBERTY with that original." Caps 
added.

"No one likes to find that someone else has interposed their
thinking (however learned) between himself and the original. That is 
the HEIGHT OF PRESUMPTION, in my esteem." Caps added.

Had not Dallas written that all such changes should be clearly
MARKED especially putting them in an appendix separate from HPB's 
original text "so that trusting student can know whether that was
what HPB wrote OR NOT"?

In light of all of the above, why would Dallas still prefer and 
recommend this Theosophy Company edition?

His reply to this question of why he would still be preferring and 
recommending this TC edition is in part as follows:

"Why should I not recommend the T. Co. edition? Did you find any 
changes in meaning ? The difference in the PREFACE as to the 
spelling of 'Bhagavad Gita / Bhagavadgita' seem to me to fall under 
this. In any case that is not the TEXT of the VOICE."

As soon as I read this and similar statements I knew that Dallas, for
reasons best known to him, was now quibbling with me about the 
definition of "verbatim"!!

No longer was he defining "verbatim" as he had formerly done, now 
Dallas was changing the focus and suggesting that we should not be 
concerned with whether actual alterations had been done to the TEXT , 
but instead we should be concerned with whether or or not the 
alteration had actually changed the MEANING!!

In part two, I will explore Dallas' "new stance" on what verbatim 
means.

In closing this section, I now wonder what Dallas really meant when 
he wrote:

"Those articles [by Blavatsky and Judge] have been made into books as 
accurate verbatim reprints of the originals, and are made available 
by ULT."

Does he mean by "verbatim" in this statement that no alterations to 
the text of these articles will be found in these compilations or 
does he mean that changes and corrections may have been made but none 
of the changes alter the meaning of the originals?

Daniel Caldwell

(Continued in Part II)