Theos-Talk Archives (November 2006 Message tt00880)

It seems to me that there are some basic principles which should be
applied in ethical editing of other writers? works, and which are
certainly not applied by Adyar or the TPH. I am not sufficiently familiar
with other Theosophical publishers to comment on their practice.
Where the text (or manuscript) is edited in the author?s lifetime and the
edited text is accepted by the author (as happens with modern publishers),
even substantial changes, once accepted by the author for publication can
be incorporated as if they are the author?s text.
When the text (or manuscript) is edited after the author?s death, all
changes from the author?s original text ought to be clearly indicated
unless they are very minor and can thus be indicated in a general editor?s
or publisher?s note ? for example, ?The spelling in the original text has
been revised to conform to English rather than American conventions?.
Where text is changed, deleted, added to or in any other way varied from
the original, this out to be clearly indicated ? either in footnotes (e.g.
?The correct spelling of the name is Velikovsky.) or in the text (e.g.
?[Correct spelling: Velikovsky]?.
General statements (as, for example, in many TPH modern editions of
Leadbeater?s works) that ?Some material no longer relevant has been
deleted? or ?Slight changes have been made to omit out-of-date material?
may be honest and conceal nothing fraudulent, but they give the reader no
way of knowing what has been edited out and why. To edit out, for example,
all references to the anticipated Coming from ?The Masters and the Path?
is simply fraudulent: the whole purpose in originally publishing the book
was in relation to the Coming. To delete racist statements from ?The Inner
Life? on grounds that they are no longer ?politically correct? is
dishonest because it presents a wholly distorted view of Leadbeater?s
teachings views on race and racial inferiority.
Where various versions of a text were published during the author?s
lifetime, any new edition ought to be an accurate reproduction of one,
specified edition, or indicate what parts from which earlier editions have
been incorporated or left out. A further ?edition? published after an
author?s death is more properly described as a ?reprint? (if the text is
unchanged) or an ?edition? if the text has been added to or edited, in
which case any changes ought to be identified. The TPH is particularly odd
in its use of ?reprint? and ?edition?.
?Correcting? original material ? as in punctuation, spelling, etc. ? may
simply be for reasons of editorial policy, but it may also be for
ideological reasons. That an author was no good at spelling, or got some
names wrong, or used incorrect dates now and then, is an inherent part of
the author?s personality and of the author?s written work.
When a work is published as ?abridged? this ought not to mean ?with any
embarrassing or currently unacceptable parts deleted?. It ought to mean
what in publishing convention it means: the whole work condensed with no
changes to meaning.
Where a work claims to be a photographic reproduction (e.g. of the 1st
edition) it should be that: an exact photographic reproduction with no
changes at all.
Where a work claims to be a reprint (e.g. of the 1st edition) it should be
that: not an edited text of the original work.
If a publisher wishes to edit on some ideological basis, that should be
made clear to the reader in a note. For example: ?This edition of
Leadbeater?s book has been edited to delete passages which (i) may be
found to be racist and offensive, (ii) are now known to be scientifically
or historically false, or (iii) refer to prophecies which have not been
fulfilled.?
As the underlying principle: a work should be precisely what it claims to.
If it is the 1st edition of ?The Masters and the Path?, that?s what it
should be. If it is the 1st edition of ?The Masters and the Path?, edited
and revised by XYZ, that is how it should be described. If it is ?The
Voice of the Silence? with additional notes by W.Q. Judge, that is how it
should be described and the ?additional notes? should be clearly
identified and distinguished from the original text.

In the old days of hot metal type printing, the principles I am suggesting
imposed considerable difficulties on publishers. In an age of scanners and
computers, they impose little more than minor additions to the publishing
process.

Dr Gregory Tillett