Theos-Talk Archives (April 2003 Message tt00127)

Dear Daniel,

In response to some comments made by Dallas TenBroeck on this list (and elsewhere), you have raised the issue of the publication by The Theosophy Company of the original works of H. P. Blavatsky. Please allow me to attempt to set the record straight about our publication policy.

First of all, we consider the works of H. P. Blavatsky and those of William Q. Judge to be essentially consistent with each other, and of considerable value to the world. We therefore make available the works of both authors. 

Second, it is a fact that they wrote on different continents throughout most of their writing careers, and sometimes reprinted material in their own publications that the other first wrote elsewhere. They also reprinted their own writings when the opportunity presented itself, making the question of "original publication" sometimes confusing.

For example, when Judge reprinted "The Voice of the Silence" in New York in 1893, he did some minor editing and rearranged the footnotes to appear on the text pages instead of at the back of the book. So, when The Theosophy
Company went to re-publish the Voice, there were two editions to choose from: Blavatsky's and Judge's. Which one should we have published? HPB's "original" text, or Judge's edition which was a bit easier to use? The Theosophy Company editors apparently decided to use Judge's, relying on his known skill as an editor. Should the book contain a note explaining how that edition had come into being and had been chosen? Yes, probably, and when we eventually reprint it, we can address that issue. However, the way your statements are phrased makes it appear that The Theosophy Company
edited "The Voice of the Silence" without telling anyone! That is not the case and I am surprised that you would imply that we had done so.

The situation with "A Modern Panarion" is similar. The book was published in London, England in 1895 by the Theosophical Publishing Society, which in some cases edited Blavatsky's original articles. Again, we have a dilemma: which edition of the articles should The Theosophy Company have printed? The original book, "The Modern Panarion," already contained changes from the first-published articles. Should we have gone back and corrected each article to the original? Perhaps, but then we would have changed the book! The TPS was originally responsible for the changes; is it fair to cry "foul" because the Theosophy Company editors either did not know or allowed that fact to pass without comment?

Finally, despite the impression possibly left by the enthusiastic comments of individuals from time to time, we do not claim to be infallible in our work. We can and do make mistakes, and will be glad to correct any that are brought to our attention and to publicly acknowledge such whenever necessary.

The two cases you have mentioned, Daniel, hardly seem to be worthy of taking to task The Theosophy Company for violating its declared principles. Let us hope that these few words finally put your charges to rest.

Sincerely and Fraternally,
Wesley Amerman
President
The Theosophy Company
Los Angeles, California USA
(213) 748-7244

____________________________________________________________________________
> Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 15:53:56 -0000
> From: "Daniel H. Caldwell" <inquire@blavatskyarchives.com>
> Subject: Dallas on "ONLY the originals"of HPB's writings
>
> Dallas, I am always amazed when you write such statements as in the
> following example:
>
> "As far as I can see, that's why the U L T insists on using and
> providing for study, only the ORIGINALS -- I see too many
> interpretive changes in Theosophical texts altered by those who have
> later claimed that they can correct errors made in those 'originals.'
> Who dares to say that they can do better than H P B and the Masters
> who certified ( PATH Vol. 8, p. 1-3 ) to have co-edited the text of
> The SECRET DOCTRINE?" Quoted from:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/11759
>
> Unfortunately, Dallas, this statement of yours is simply NOT factual
> and you of all people should know it.
>
> You write that the "ULT insists on using and providing for study,
> ONLY the ORIGINALS. . . " I put in caps the word "only".
>
> This is simply not true. The ULT publishes and sells two works by
> HPB [THE VOICE OF THE SILENCE & MODERN PANARION)that can not be
> honestly described as ORIGINALS. As I have documented before in
> great detail, both of these works do NOT conform to HPB's ORIGINALS.
> The texts have been altered.
>
> The ULT's VOICE OF THE SILENCE is a very GOOD EXAMPLE of (to use your
> own words)"Theosophical texts altered by those who have
> later claimed that they can correct errors made in those 'originals.'"
>
> The editor of this edition of the VOICE claimed that he
> could "correct errors" made in the original. And in fact, made
> corrections and didn't inform the reader that "corrections" were made.
>
> When you ask:
>
> "Who dares to say that they can do better than H P B and the
> Masters. . .?"
>
> one might point to the ULT's VOICE and MODERN PANARION and answer:
>
> Apparently the "editors" of those two works DARED to say that they
> could do better than HPB and the Masters.
>
> In summary, your statement quoted at the beginning of this posting is
> very misleading especially to newcomers and inquirers on this list.
>
> Daniel H. Caldwell
> BLAVATSKY STUDY CENTER/BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
> http://blavatskyarchives.com



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]