Theos-Talk Archives (May 2005 Message tt00749)

Comparing Deveney with Algeo
Aug 21, 2004 12:26 PM
by Daniel H. Caldwell

In his review of THE LETTERS OF H.P.
BLAVATSKY, Volume I, Mr. Deveney wrote:

============================================

[Dr. Algeo] ... states
that, for unspecified reasons, none
of Cooper's work could be used "directly,"
and that even his transcriptions of texts
were not used because they were "not
accurate." This is a surprising charge,
directed as it is toward a person known
for his meticulous work and now unavailable
to defend himself.
[as quoted in Paul Johnson's excerpts]

============================================

Now let us quote from pp. xiv-xv of Algeo's
preface selected excerpts for comparison
with Deveney's above statements:

=============================================

...Boris de Zirkoff . . . gathered all letters
[of Blavatsky's] of whose existence he knew and
tentatively dated them. . . .

. . . de Zirkoff left ... [this manuscript of
HPB's letters]. . . . to the Theosophical
Society in America. . . .

[Later] . . . the Theosophical Publishing
House [Wheaton] asked [John] Cooper to become 
the editor of all the letters and passed on
to him COPIES of all the letters that de
Zirkoff had collected.... [caps added]

John [Cooper]... located a number of additional
letters unknown to Boris de Zirkoff because
of their obscurity or because they had come
to light only after Boris's death. . . 

After John Cooper's death, it became clear that, 
for several reasons, his work on the letters
could not be used directly. One of those reasons
was the discovery that the texts of many of the
letters - both those de Zirkoff had collected but
not fully edited and those Cooper had added to 
the known corpus - were not accurate. . . . 

John Algeo as ... [the] new editor . . . [decided
that] all of the texts had to be regathered to assure
their accuracy and fidelity to the best original
sources. That task was performed personally by
John and Adele Algeo for most of the letters. . . .

==========================================

Ok, let me again quote Mr. Deveney's statement
and follow that with a specific statement by
Dr. Algeo:

Deveney:

==================================================
[Dr. Algeo] ... states
that, for unspecified reasons, none
of Cooper's work could be used "directly,"
and that even his transcriptions of texts
were not used because they were "not
accurate." This is a surprising charge,
directed as it is toward a person known
for his meticulous work and now unavailable
to defend himself.[as quoted in Paul Johnson's excerpts]

================================================

Algeo:

=================================================

After John Cooper's death, it became clear that, 
for several reasons, his work on the letters
could not be used directly. One of those reasons
was the discovery that the texts of many of the
letters - both those de Zirkoff had collected but
not fully edited and those Cooper had added to 
the known corpus - were not accurate. . . . 

================================================

Notice Deveney's statement:

"HIS [John Cooper's] transcriptions of texts
were not used because they were "not accurate." 

==============================================

This statement is incomplete and does not
tell the whole story. Algeo had specifically
written:

================================================

. . . the discovery that the texts of MANY of the
letters - BOTH those de Zirkoff had collected but
not fully edited and those Cooper had added to 
the known corpus - were not accurate. . . . 

================================================

When Deveney writes:

"HIS [John Cooper's] transcriptions of texts
. . . were 'not accurate.' " 

the reader might conclude that Cooper had
transcribed ALL the letters and that Algeo
was stating that ALL of Cooper's transcriptions of
the letters were not accurate.

This is not what Algeo actually wrote.

Having personally in 1987 or 1986
gone to The TS in Wheaton, Illinois and having
been given access to the archives, I carefully
went through de Zirkoff's notebooks in which
he had filed chonologically all of his own
transcriptions of HPB's letters. Boris
had typed or had someone else type up a 
transcription. I can see how errors could
have crept in.

Considering all the letters collected by
BOTH de Zirkoff and Cooper I would estimate
that de Zirkoff probably transcribed into
his manuscript about 85 % of the total number
of extant letters.

This would mean that Cooper possibly transcribed about 15%
of the total number.

As far as I can tell from studying Cooper's dissertation
(available in microfiche), it appears to me
that Cooper simply incorporated into his text
the transcriptions provided in the copies given
to him by TPH Wheaton. That is, all the copies
from Boris' notebooks in the Wheaton archives.

As far as I know from phone conversations
with John Cooper over several years, he did NOT
have the photocopies or microfilm reproductions of
many of HPB's ORIGINAL handwritten letters therefore
he would not have been in a position to check
the accuracy of the transcription Boris had made.

I talked on the phone with John Cooper about 
2 weeks before he died. He was all greasy
from working on a tractor or some piece of equipment.
I had to call him back after he cleaned up.

We talked about him being a grease monkey and had
a good chuckle. I can still remember his laughter.

At that point I told
him I was going to send him in a month or two a
box of microfilm
containing rare periodicals and newspapers that
would be relevant to HPB's letters and also
was planning to send him microfilm of many of
HPB's original handwritten letters.

And focusing on the transcriptions John Cooper had
made, there are a number of ways errors could have
crept in.

Deveney writes:

===================================================

This is a surprising charge,
directed as it is toward a person known
for his meticulous work and now unavailable
to defend himself.

=======================================================

Yes John was meticulous but that doesn't mean
transcription mistakes couldn't crept into John's
manuscript. 

I am right now trancribing 3 of HPB's unknown letters
which I recently discovered. I have gone thru several
revisions of the transcriptions and each time I 
find where I made errors. It is hard to be meticulous
and one probably has to revise and revise and hope
that the final product is as accurate as humanly
possible. 

As far as I know, the manuscript John sent to Wheaton
before his death was not some final and finished
production ready to go to press.

John had told me before he died that he wanted
me to have a copy of what he had so far worked on and
wanted me to go over it with a fine tooth comb looking
for mistakes, gaps, etc. and make suggestions as to
how the manuscript could be improved and how his own
notes and introductory material could be improved.

In other words it was a working draft copy and no doubt
if John had lived he would have revised it probably a number
of times before the volume would have been published by
TPH Wheaton.

He also wanted Jerry Hejka-Edkins to have a copy and
also provide feedback and comments.

Furthermore, I remember when Dr. Algeo wrote to me
and told me that he had discovered that many of the
transcriptions were not accurate. This was after
John Cooper had died.

What was Dr. Algeo suppose to do? Ignore the 
mistakes. 

>>From the very beginning of my collaboration with
Dr. Algeo on this project, he was insistent that
the transcriptions be as close to the originals as
humanly possible. With no corrrections or editing
of HPB's words. 

Later I read what Gregory Tillett was writing on Theos-Talk 
and also in an article in FOHAT.

On Theos-Talk, Gregory Tillett wrote:

=====================================================
John deliberately had this clause
included in the contract. He was (as he told me on several
occasions, including on the night before his death, and 
as he told others)concerned that attempts might be made to 
inappropriately edit, 'censor' or amend the
text of the HPB correspondence.
===========================================================

And there is another relevant quote on this same subject
in Tillett's letter published in FOHAT.

Several Theosophists apparently took this "possibility" and spread
the rumor that Dr. Algeo was inappropriately 
editing, censoring or amending the text of HPB's letters!

Even in the last 9 months since Vol. I was published,
Frank R. on this very forum brought up this possibility
and said a number of things which simply were inaccurate
and not true.

Transcribing an accurate typed copy of an HPB letter
is not easy!

In the last 6 months I sent Dr. Algeo a copy of a 12 pp.
handwritten letter by HPB I discovered that Boris and John
knew nothing about.

Dr. Algeo and his wife did a typed transcription of the letter
and sent it back to me. They said to see if I could find
any mistakes and also to see if I could make out what several
words were. I am still trying to decipher what some of these words 
are!

I guess I've rambled on enough but I wanted to give a
fuller picture of what Mr. Deveney was trying to write about.

Daniel
http://hpb.cc