Theos-Talk Archives (April 2005 Message tt00292)

Dan, 
If you want to get into it, there is even more to it than that. A 
careful analysis of reprinted ULT material will reveal quite a lot of 
examples of differences from the originals. For the most part, these 
were errors of ignorance. The point is that they, unlike other 
organizations, were not trying to "improve" on the original writings.

I'm glad that you are out there tracking down all of these errors. That 
is important work. But, let's not let ULT's errors detract from their 
intent, to preserve the original writings as they understood them to be, 
during a time when other Theosophical organizations were trying to 
"improve" upon them. That was the point I was trying to make, and I 
still think we ought to be thankful for their efforts--though not 
perfectly done. 
Jerry



Daniel H. Caldwell wrote:

> Jerry,
>
> You wrote: 
> "They [The Theosophy Co.] use an Edition [of the
> VOICE] modified by Judge."
>
> Actually there's more to it than that. 
> In 2003, one ULT associate wrote:
>
> ". . . both of those Stokes letters are
> mistaken due to the erroneous info he received from
> Theosophy Company. At the time (1928) John Garrigues
> [of ULT](whose handwritten note appears on the inside
> front cover) did not realize that changes had ALREADY
> BEEN MADE in the edition Judge was marking up for
> publication."
>
> Another writer also elaborated on the edition
> Judge marked up:
>
> ". . . Judge did not use HPB's original edition for
> his own edition of the Voice, but used the already
> doctored 1892 edition which was probably altererd
> [sic] by Mead and Besant. . . . this has been verified
> because that 1892 copy with Judge's handwriting is in
> LA Lodge [of the United Lodge of Theosophists]. 
> . . . "
>
> Quoted from:
> http://theos-talk.com/archives/200305/tt00044.html
>
> Daniel
> http://blavatskyarchives.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links