Theos-Talk Archives (August 2002 Message tt00199)

Aug 22 2002

Dear Daniel:

Re: Edited versions of S D and T. GLOSSARY


To my way of reading we are more in agreement than
otherwise. Thanks for your notes and queries.

One thing that this most difficult to determine is as you
state: How much have the final printed words we see and
read, whether in S D or in T Gloss been altered by other's
editing ?

I can only say -- and this is not based on the literary
expressions alone -- that there is always in the study of
any Theosophical text a most amorphous feature: the reader
him, or herself, their knowledge of Theosophy and their
discernment as to whether the expression read is accurate to
the intent, and content of Theosophical doctrine/s or not.
[This begins to sound like one of those old theological
debates about individual opinions]

Only the reader can determine for themselves the veracity or
reasonableness of what they study.

Personally I prefer unedited H P B. Better still I would
like to proof the new material with her originals.

As to the editing and the editors of such versions: If they
(the editors) give fair warning to the reader that the
claimed author ( H P B ) did not edit the final version,
then I would be satisfied. I could then read or study that
material on the basis that it may have been altered from
what H P B originally wrote. In such case I would (based on
my study and knowledge) decide if a statement was in accord
with what has already been taught elsewhere. But this
plain statement is important to me.

If further they would say that they have not intentionally
altered the text as they found it, I would be even more
satisfied.

I hope this expresses what I believe to be my attitude (and
opinion) towards this subject.

Let take the issue of the VOICE OF THE SILENCE (we have
discussed this) and of Judge's editorial changes made in the
New York 1893 edition he issued. He had been given during
her lifetime, blanket authority by H P B to do this. Has
the doctrine (in the "Voice" been altered ? Have key
statements made by H P B in the text been altered ? Yes
there have been movements of blocks of text from one page to
another -- chiefly of the "foot-notes." But that merely was
for organizational clarity and the benefit of students. A
few corrections of spellings were introduced. But,
substantially, no change in doctrine.

Since we lack the original MSS from which Mr. Mead and Mrs.
Besant made their editions we cannot compare them. Too bad.
We are denied the opportunity of checking them and proofing
them. We then have to depend on our knowledge of doctrine
obtained from our own study made earlier. And that then
becomes an "opinion" -- ours, and it can be found fault
with by others.

Best wishes,

Dallas

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

-----Original Message-----
From: danielhcaldwell
[mailto:comments@blavatskyarchives.com]
Sent:	Tuesday, August 20, 2002 9:45 PM
To:	theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject:	Theos-World Editing of SD Volume III as compared to
editing of The Theosophical Glossary

Dallas,

Again thanks for your latest comments at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/7769

I want to focus on a number of related statements that you
made.

I collate them below from your posting and my comments
follow the
collation:

*** "One think I am quite certain of is that H P B might not
have
issued the THIRD VOLUME of The SECRET DOCTRINE without
further editing by her. We do not know that she either did
or did not do this, and we do not know how much of a hand A.
B. may have in such work."

*** "I am in accord with your reasoning but with the same
proviso that we do not have any details of possible changes
in writing or editing H P B may have or may not have made."

*** "We cannot assume that there were none and that
throughout
there were NO CHANGES form the brief descriptions and titles
we are given."

*** "We do not know how H P B would have finally edited or
arranged this material. I hesitate to make assumptions on
that, and cannot think we ought to accept without due
caution the material offered as being ENTIRELY as H P B
WOULD HAVE EDITED IT."

*** "She does not say, when she placed it there, that it was
verbatim, unaltered H P B -- in what she called Vol. III of
The SECRET DOCTRINE (and as we can see it contains articles
with the same titles that H P B used. Can we say A B did
nothing to them but transcribe them faithfully and verbatim
?"

*** "A. B. was in the habit of altering things to suit
herself. In this case H P B had no hand in the final
version offered to the public."

*** "In this case she added material. From where? How much?
Why ? How did she know H P B wanted this to be included in
the THIRD VOLUME ?"

MY COMMENTS FOLLOW:

(1) Dallas, notice that your comments above are about the
EDITING of
the HPB material, but that is a separate issue from the
issue of what
material in general was in Volume I of the 1886 SD MSS as
compared to
what was in Volume III as of 1887 as compared to what was in
Volume
III as of 1897. In previous posts I have been dealing for
the most
part with this separate issue. Not the editing issue.

(2) Yes, we should be concerned about the editing. How
much did
Annie Besant edit the material? That's a good question.
But even if
she edited the material, does that mean that we should
totally
disregard the material? Or suggest that it is somehow
spurious? I
will address the editing of the material in greater detail
in a
future posting.

(3) Now another point: Dallas, I ask you, ought not the
same
questions that you raise about SD III be also raised about
THE
THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY?

I would suggest that every point you make above also applies
to THE
THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY.

HPB died before THE THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY was published.
G.R.S. Mead
was therefore in charge of the final editing of the
manuscript for
publication.

Your statements could be paraphrased and equally applied to
THE
THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY as follows:

(1) "One thing I am quite certain of is that H P B might
not have
issued THE THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY without further editing by
her. . . . we do not know how much of a hand G.R.S. Mead may
have had
in such work."

(2) "We do not know how H P B would have finally edited or
arranged this material in THE THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY."

(3) "Mead does not say that the published THEOSOPHICAL
GLOSSARY
was verbatim, unaltered H P B. Can we say Mead did nothing
to the TG
manuscript but transcribe it faithfully and verbatim as
finally
published in THE THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY?"

(4) "Mead was in the habit of altering things to suit
himself.
In this case H P B had no hand in the final version of THE
THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY offered to the public." Compare and
contrast
Mead's actual editing of SD Volumes I and II in 1893. See
also
Mead's editing of MODERN PANARION.

And as you well know, Boris de Zirkoff believed that Mead
actually
ADDED A GREAT DEAL OF MATERIAL to HPB's "original"
manuscript of the
Glossary.

Do you see my point? Every concern you raise about SD
Volume III
applies, as far as I can tell, to THE THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY.

These concerns may be real but what does the student of
Blavatsky's
writings do? Ignore both posthumously published volumes?
That is,
throw the baby out with the bath water? Or .....

Comments welcomed.

Daniel

Daniel H. Caldwell
BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
http://blavatskyarchives.com/introduction.htm

"...Contrast alone can enable us to appreciate things at
their right value; and unless a judge compares notes and
hears both sides he can hardly come to a correct decision."
H.P. Blavatsky. The Theosophist, July, 1881, p. 218.






















Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/