Theos-Talk Archives (November 2006 Message tt01026)

Friends, 

As we seem to be in a 'calmer day' today here at Theos-talk, I would 
strongly suggest that at least some of you people read this posting 
below, by G. Tillett. 

To it, I add but one commentary. The editorial policy followed by 
John Algeo and the USA TPH in editing the volume one of "HPB 
Letters, False and Authentic" -- is clearly way outside the common 
sense criteria proposed by Tillett. 


Regards,  Carlos. 


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, gregory@... wrote:
>
> 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 deleted" or "Slight changes have been made to omit out-of-date 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
>