Theos-Talk Archives (April 2004 Message tt00201)

Daniel:

Assuming there you may not be "the only person on this forum who is 
puzzled by [my] statement, I offer the following brief response.

John frequently said that he had required a clause giving him complete 
editorial control over the publication of the HPB letters for which he 
was contracted by TPH, Wheaton, because he was concerned that Adyar (or 
its Wheaton manifestation) might want to censor the text of the letters 
or John's commentary on them. After John's death, his family essentially 
imposed only one restriction on the TPH regarding the publication of the 
manuscript (which had already been sent to John Algeo): that no change, 
addition, deletion, alteration or variation be made within the text 
without the family's permission. The family acknowledged that spelling, 
grammar, syntax, historical errors, punctuation, etc, etc might be 
corrected - this is a standard role and right of any publisher. Material 
that was not claimed to be (i) HPB's or (ii) John's might be added. The 
family, on the basis of an agreement to this effect being entered into, 
offered to provide all possible assistance and cooperation for the whole 
series of volumes of correspondence. It remains (at least to me) a 
mystery why TPH, Wheaton (and John Algeo) could or would not enter into 
such an agreement - unless there was a concern (which may or may not have 
been acted upon) to "correct" the material. All the correspondence, 
including the attorney's letters (presumably paid for by the TS or the 
TPH) made no mention of the family's requirement or offered any 
explanation as to why it was unacceptable. Perhaps you can explain why an 
agreement not to edit, censor, change or "adjust" material would be 
unacceptable?

You say: "I am somewhat puzzled by your mention of "rigid definitions of 
'ideological correctness'" which is "one of the reasons why John's 
collection of HPB's correspondence has been suppressed by Adyar (in its 
Wheaton manifestation." What other explanation can you offer? If there is 
no wish to censor, why not surrender the right to do so?

You ask: "Has any of HPB's letters been suppressed?" I do not know, since 
I have, as yet, to see a copy of the Wheaton edition of the letters. I am 
morally uncomfortable (even if the TS bookshop in Sydney was selling the 
work, which it is not) with buying that which an honoured friend devoted 
years to producing and which has been.... well, let me be cautious here! 
I do not have the TS in America's or the TPH, Wheaton's resources to pay 
attorneys! But I will eventually obtain a copy, and will carefully 
compare it both with John's PhD thesis and with the manuscript he sent to 
Wheaton. My primary responsibility is to John's family, and to advise 
them on what action might be appropriate. I know the material that John 
felt might be censored.

You ask: "What does "ideological correctness" have to do with this 
alleged suppression?" Well, what else could it be? I suppose non-specific 
nastiness may be an explanation. But if a manuscript exists, a contract 
exists ... a problem arises ... if there is a problem other than concern 
about potential "ideological correctness" why not raise it with the 
family? Try something like: being open and honest?

I do not argue - because I have yet to determine - whether censorship or 
ideologically based editing has occurred. I do argue that refusing to 
agree NOT to censor raises at least a reasonable suspicion of 
"ideological correctness" - but I'm happy to hear (preferably from Dr 
Algeo) another explanation.

Dr Gregory Tillett