Theos-Talk Archives (April 2006 Message tt00473)

Gregory, you wrote:

====================================================
The claim that John's research was not included in 
the Algeo volume is – let me use plain language – 
a blatant, scandalous and bare-faced lie. I have 
beside me as I write (i) the Algeo volume, (ii) 
John's PhD thesis on the Blavatsky letters and (iii) 
a copy of the manuscript sent by John to the TPH 
before his death. If I compare them I find sentence 
after sentence reproduced but for a word or two.
Does anyone seriously believe that, between the 
time of John's death and the publication of the Algeo 
volume, the complete text was re-researched and
created anew? Including letters that John had 
discovered? Without any reliance on John's work, 
Algeo or his puppets, acting independently, just 
happened to find the same material?
==================================================

I believe a few points of clarification are needed in order
to avoid any possible misunderstandings:

(1)  When you write:

"If I compare them I find sentence 
after sentence reproduced but for a word or two."

Now are you telling your readers on Theos-Talk that
you find sentence after sentence of John Cooper's
editorial COMMENTS/commentary reproduced in the
TPH Wheaton volume with only a word of two changed
here and there?

(2)And could you provide us with a small number of examples
illustrating this point of yours?

(3)  Concerning your statement which reads:

"Including letters that John had discovered?"

there are 136 letters in the published TPH Wheaton
volume.

How many of these letters did John himself discover?
Do you know which ones in the TPH volume fall under
this category of "John discovered" as opposed to what
was already in the Boris de Zirkoff collection or available
thru other published sources known by Algeo independently of
the Cooper MSS?

(4)  Again you write:

"....the complete text was re-researched and created anew?"

By "complete text" what do you mean?  Does the complete
text include all of the letters provided FROM the Boris de
Zirkoff collection at Wheaton TS?  And what particular letters in 
this published Wheaton TPH volume were provided to the complete text 
by Cooper himself?  etc. etc.  

(5) And who are the "puppets" that you are referring to?
Is this a somewhat "negative" term used to describe the
persons on the Letters commmittee?  And since I was on that
committee does that mean I was a "puppet"?  And when I was
working with and assisting John Cooper on the letters, was I
his "puppet"?  And why call Dara Eklund Algeo's "puppet"?  She
was the editor of several volumes of the CW series and worked
with Boris de Zirkoff.  Was Dara Boris' puppet, too?  Why use
this term to describe the said individuals?  Is this a term you 
would use for example in an article in THEOSOPHICAL HISTORY?

(6)  And since you say you have documents (i), (ii) and (iii),
shouldn't you also be comparing all of these with  document (iv) 
[which consists of all the photocopies that TPH Wheaton originally 
gave to John Cooper from the Boris de Zirkoff collection of H.P.B.'s 
letters]??  Wouldn't these photocopies (which make up document iv)  
help one to determine what was available at Wheaton to Algeo?

These are the types of questions that need to be answered so readers 
will be in a better position to assess what you have written and 
come to some more or less correct understanding of the issues 
involved.

Daniel