Theos-Talk Archives (August 2004 Message tt00688)

Hey,

Still waiting for my copy of the Letters Vol. 1, and following
discussion here on intellectual freedom in the TS--Adyar, I'm moved to
share my contrasting experience of two Theosophists named John. 
Although I never was privileged to meet John Cooper, we corresponded
regularly during the process of revision/expansion of my
self-published book In Search of the Masters which became two books
published by SUNY Press. No Theosophist was more helpful and
encouraging to me than John Cooper, who gave my manuscript a thorough
and careful reading and made many useful suggestions. Later, when he
was working on the Letters volume, he told me that the sole material
relevant to my own research that he found in the letters was
confirmation of HPB's esteem for and friendship with Sir Richard
Burton. I will look forward to finding out what he meant by that, if
it is included in the first volume. Also will look forward to Dr.
Tillett's comparison of John Cooper's collection of letters with the
finished product published by TPH.

It is well known to many if not most theos-talk participants that Dr.
Algeo wrote the only negative review of my book The Masters Revealed
that appeared in an official TS-Adyar publications, after a series of
favorable reviews from John Cooper, Geoffrey Farthing, Michel
Caracostea, and Joy Mills (in Theosophy in Australia, Theosophical
Journal, Le Lotus Bleu, and The Quest, respectively.) That Algeo's
position was negative was not in itself cause for complaint, but he
misconstrued the book, ridiculed it, made obviously false accusations
of scholarly errors, and attacked the book both in the American
Section journal and the only scholarly journal devoted to the subject
matter of Theosophical History. That was of course disappointing, but
not as much as the total silence on the subject of the Masters'
historical identities that ensued; the topic had been "put to rest."

Still, a negative review or two is not such a terrible thing and does
not necessarily reflect badly on the reviewer's position on
intellectual freedom. The misrepresentations and false accusations
might not have been intentional, and I had no reason to suspect any
personal animus since Dr. Algeo had always been pleasant to me in
person. BUT there are four factors that raise questions about his
role in encouraging or suppressing intellectual freedom. First, in
the late 80s on what became my self-published book, it was under
consideration by TPH for the better part of a year (as with TUP and
PLP.) Shirley Nicholson was my contact person, but she always made it
clear that John Algeo was the decision maker, and finally that he was
responsible for TPH's rejection of the ms. No problem there, of
course. Second, after self-publication I came up with the idea of
revising as a series of capsule biographies of HPB's mentors/sponsors
presented chronologically, and again contacted TPH. This time I dealt
with a different person whose name I don't recall but again it was
made clear that Algeo was the decision man. And I was told that TPH
would be interested in publishing the revision ONLY ON CONDITION that
no reference be made to the Theosophical Masters' identities. It
seems bizarre that I would have thought such a thing possible, and
John Oliphant (author of Brother Twelve) strongly urged me not to
consider it. But I tried in good faith to censor myself and not touch
any Adyar sacred cow. However, once I stumbled into information about
the connections among Sarat Chandra Das, Ugyen Gyatso, the Sengchen
Tulku, and the TS Founders, it became clear that I couldn't avoid the
Masters' identities issue. So I wrote to TPH that I'd seek
publication elsewhere. 

Third, when I did get a contract from SUNY, I needed to get
permissions from various publishers for quotations. TPH held
copyright on some sources I needed, particularly Caves and Jungles
(because newly translated). Of all the publishers I needed to contact
for permissions, only TPH charged me: $225 for a few paragraphs of
material written by HPB more than a century earlier, but under TPH
copyright because newly translated. Not only that, John Algeo also
demanded that I put a statement saying that TPH was affiliated with
the TS which DID NOT NECESSARILY ENDORSE THE VIEWS OF THE AUTHOR. No
other publisher felt any need to demand such a disclaimer or charge me
money for permission. Fourth, years later the ARE was publishing an
article by me and needed a picture of Annie Besant who was mentioned
in the piece. Their editor said TPH had always been totally
cooperative in the past, but this time they asked who was the author
of the article for which ARE wanted the illustration. Upon being told
who the author was, permission was denied. 

Bottom line, then, is that the person who is chiefly responsible for
scholarly standards in Adyar publishing had first made TPH's decision
against publishing a manuscript, tried to shape it into something less
threatening to Adyar orthodoxy, behaved in a petty obstructionist
manner after it found a scholarly publisher, and attacked and
ridiculed the book after it was published. That one person should
have such power and use it in such a way was reason enough to give up
on the Adyar TS's intellectual freedom. 

None of this necessarily indicates that the HPB Letters project will
be less valuable to scholars as an Algeo production than if John
Cooper's edition had seen the light of day. But years of experience
with both individuals, combined with Deveney's review, leads me to
wonder what has been lost due to this change.

Paul