Theos-Talk Archives (May 2003 Message tt00158)

Wes, you wrote:

"What might be open to interpretation would [be] Dallas' view that 
changes made by William Q. Judge to a work originally published by 
H.P. Blavatsky are acceptable. It really comes down to how one views 
their relationship, and what value we place on Mr. Judge's works. 
HPB's writings contain a great many statements that indicate quite 
clearly that she held Judge in the highest regard. Since she wrote 
that Judge had been 'a part of herself for aeons past,' some of her 
students might take that to mean she tacitly allowed Judge free 
reign." 

Yes, Wes, that is one issue which I will comment on later in this 
email but the other issue I've written on centers around allowing 
readers to know that changes were made by Judge from HPB's original.  
Notice the five following quotes from Dallas' writings:

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

". . . 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."

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

"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."

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

"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."

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

". . . . 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."

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

"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."

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

Shouldn't all of the above apply to Judge's "corrections', too?

I would hope that Dallas (and you) would want Judge's changes to ALSO 
be clearly identified even if Dallas (and you?) believe that 
HPB "tacitly allowed Judge free reign." 

At a bare minimum I think that the Theosophy Company's edition of THE 
VOICE which embodies editing by Judge should include a notice on the 
title page or opposite the title page indicating that this edition 
has been revised, edited and corrected by Judge. A label with such 
wording could easily be affixed to all future copies sold of this 
edition.

Now let me consider your particular statement which reads:

"Since she wrote that Judge had been 'a part of herself for aeons 
past,' some of her students might take that to mean she tacitly 
allowed Judge free reign."

Yes, it is true that HPB wrote that particular phrase about Judge.
But what does it exactly mean? And are there not more than one 
interpretation of what that phrase means?

Consider the following.

During HPB's lifetime when BOTH she and Judge were alive, did 
HPB "tacitly allow Judge free reign"? Did she always see eye to eye 
with Judge on important matters (ordinary or esoteric)?

In a letter to Countess Wachtmeister in 1890, Judge wrote:

"As to the photos of Masters I consider the whole thing a scandal. In 
one breath they are sacred and then they are sold for money. It does 
not excuse to say that they cost that, for if they are to go to 
certain proper persons then they should be free and if that can't be 
afforded then they should not be at all. . . ."

The Countess showed Judge's letter to HPB and HPB wrote to Judge:

"As to the Masters' photos. . . . Why speak of selling the 
photos? . . . Does paying for the bare cost of producing them come 
under the head of selling? In other words the privilege to the 
members is simply that of taking copies of the photos at their own 
expense." 

". . . I do not understand why the pictures of the Masters should 
become less 'sacred' because the photographer who reproduces them has 
to be paid?" 

"Will W.Q.J. please explain?" 

Quoted from:
http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/hpbwqj2990b.htm

On this important issue about allowing ES members to buy copies of 
the Masters' portraits, HPB and Judge did NOT agree.

Or take the following excerpt from a letter HPB wrote to Judge:

"But the point is that if you go on as you do, it is I who will break 
with America, as I do not intend to keep on being bullied by you in 
every letter. Your opinion of me is quite flattering. I have 
been 'egged' you think by someone. No Esotericist here will ever egg 
me. The rules were passed & added, just as the Gupta Vidya Lodge here 
was formed, in which the majority is to, & already belongs, to the 
inner circle you speak of. You never imagined, did you, that a body 
of about 500 men & women (473) could remain having all its members 
trusted as much as the few? I have begun the shifting long ago. But 
as the Master told me to do, so I did. [M\ glyph] said, only last 
January in a letter I have what I had to do — & I only carry out
his 
instructions, not mine. You seem to imagine that I care personally 
for this hard labour work, the tread-mill of the E.S. I say I do not 
in the least, except to benefit the T.S. at large. . . . if you kick 
against rules III & IV, I say leave them alone; only then no E.S. 
will receive any extra matter; no group will ever have its inner 
group and they will go on semi Esotericists because only half-
trusted. In such case as I said I will choose here, those, few, with 
whom I will correspond, personally, & I need have no agent, no 
Secretary in America for it. . . . Do as you like; This is my 
ultimatum." Quoted from:
http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/hpbwqj2990.htm

These are just two examples of many that could be cited.

But regardless of what HPB may have said about Judge and what some 
students might infer from that statement, can not the student of 
Blavatsky's writings determine whether a PARTICULAR "correction" was 
justified or not?

For example, what was ACTUALLY wrong with "thin oblong squares" as in 
HPB's original edition of the VOICE?

See my post at:  
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/11902

and Peter Merriott's article mentioned in that post.

I'm curious, Wes. Do you agree or disagree with what Merriott wrote?

And I would like to hear from Dallas on this particular point, too if 
he is reading this email. 

Why change the phrase "thin oblong squares"?

Thanks for your previous emails.

Daniel

Daniel H. Caldwell
BLAVATSKY STUDY CENTER/BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
http://blavatskyarchives.com