Theos-Talk Archives (November 2006 Message tt01029)

Carlos, 

You write:

=======================================================
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.
====================================================

Now Carlos you write of "the common sense critieria proposed by 
Tillett" and say that the editorial policy by Algeo and TPH 
is "clearly way outside" that criteria proposed by Tillett.
 
But would Tillett approve of REMOVING 27 letters from the HPB Letters 
Volume I as apparently you and Jerome Wheeler and others are 
advocating???

In THE AQUARIAN THEOSOPHIST, we read:

"The HPB Defense Fund is specifically dedicated to the publication
of an authentic Volume I of Madame Blavatsky's letters. The proposed
volume will have the fraudulent letters in the current Adyar edition
REMOVED . . ." caps added

And the statement has been made here on Theos-Talk:

====================================================
"More than one century later, the book entitled The Letters of H. P.
Blavatsky - Volume I , edited by Mr. John Algeo and published by the
USA T.P.H. in 2003, might be in the same broad category of books
with an unhealthy aura. Mr. Algeo included in it forged texts full
of disgusting lies and libels, cleverly mixed among authentic
documents.

"H.P. Blavatsky ? the woman who worked day and night for the good of
mankind and who gave the world such wonderful books as The Voice of
the Silence and The Secret Doctrine ? is made to describe herself as
a mean person; a Russian spy ('letter' 07); someone who helped
torture a cat to death during 'occult' experiences ( 'letter' 76);
someone who would like to sell her soul ('letter' 53); and someone
whom the devil got into trouble in her youth ('letter' 69) ? to name
but a few examples of Mr. John Algeo's 'work'."

"Out of the 136 'letters' published by Mr. John Algeo, at least 27
documents are certainly false. . . .
====================================================

But would Tillett if he was the editor of said volume approve of 
REMOVING 27 letters???

And what does Tillett think of the new volume underway in which 27 
letters will be REMOVED?

That my friend Carlos are the questions that you do NOT ask or 
address???

BELOW is what Tillett himself has previously written about 
the "dubious" letters as he calls them:

=================================================================
John Cooper and the "dubious" letters - John's view (and mine) is 
that no scholarly editor can simply omit material on the grounds that 
some people question its veracity. Obviously, if there is evidence 
(that is, not simply opinion) that a document is not genuine, this 
should be noted and discussed. One early chapter of John's thesis 
considers some of the controversial letters in this way. Again, I 
have not reread his thesis for a long time and would have
to go back to it to comment further. However, the fact that a 
document comes from a dubious source or does not conform to some 
expectation cannot be grounds in any scholarly work for omitting it. 
I am not, as I have written previously, any sort of authority on 
Blavatsky, so I do not comment on any particular letters. But, if 
someone claims a letter is a "forgery" or has been tampered
with, the proper (scholarly) response is to produce the evidence - 
not to attack the editor. To say that "Letter X comes source Y which 
was written by person Z therefore it cannot be genuine" is simply 
irrational nonsense. Z may be a crook and a liar - who just happens 
to have a genuine letter (in the same way that B may be a living 
saint who has fallen for a fraud). I go back to an area I am familiar 
with - given that Leadbeater was a saint and could not lie and 
therefore must have been born in 1847, should I have omitted all 
reference to the 1854 birth certificate from my biography on the 
grounds that it cannot be genuine? Or since all the claims of sexual 
abuse must have been "lies" should I have left them out? Historians 
do not have the luxury of sectarian writers (like Cranston) who can 
adjust the data to fit the predetermined conclusion.
============================================================
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/34302

So Carlos if Tillett was editing said volume and did NOT "remove" 
them as you and your associates are planning, would you also denounce 
his "editorial policy"?  

Would you still say that Tillett was following "common sense 
criteria"?

Daniel
http://hpb.cc