Theos-Talk Archives (September 1998 Message tl00031)

Dallas,

In reviewing my emails, I see that you never directly responded to the
questions I was asking you about the VOICE.  My questions were prompted
by what you had previously written.

I hope that you will directly answer these questions for the benefit of
all readers on Theos-World.

FIRST QUESTION:

> In the 1889 edition of THE VOICE, on pp. 45, 51, and 87, one finds the
> following spelling of the word under consideration:
> 
> P. 45  UPADYA
> 
> P. 51  Upadya's
> 
> P. 87  Upadya      [Word is in italics.]
> 
> In your text above, Dallas, you say that the 1892 edition spells this
> word as Upadhyaya. Therefore, some "editor" has changed the spelling
> from the 1889 edition to the 1892 version.
> 
> Now I ask you, what is the spelling of this word in The Theosophy
> Company's edition?

SECOND QUESTION:

> In the original edition of THE VOICE, in HPB's preface, we find the
> following in the 2 paragraphs quoted in my previous email:
> 
> ". . . (Bhagavat-gita II. 70). . . ."
> 
>  ". . . (Bhagavatgita II. 27). . . ."
> 
> [Both words are in italics.]
> 
> Dallas, what is the spelling of this Hindu text in the Theosophy
> Company's edition?  And are the numbers [ II. 70 & II. 27 ] also given
> in the Theosophy Company's edition?

THIRD QUESTION:

> Dallas wrote:
> 
> >Why should I not recommend the T. Co. edition?  Did you find any >changes in meaning?
> 
> Daniel replies:
> 
> But my question, Dallas, is why WOULD you want to recommend the
> Theosophy Company's edition?  Just 5 days ago, you wrote:
> 
> >I prefer a facsimile edition - no question of authenticity. Comments >and changes can be put in an ADDENDUM for students to consult.
> 
> >Verbatim editions are acceptable, if truly and accurately VERBATIM - no >changes or emendations or interpolations.  Any such can be handled >through an ADDENDUM.
> 
> In light of your own words, the Theosophy Company edition is certainly
> NOT a facsimile of the orginal VOICE.  And this edition is NOT a "truly and accurately VERBATIM" edition since there are "changes or
> emendations."  Furthermore, the Theosophy Company's edition contains
> changes and emendations but the reader is not told this. 

FOURTH QUESTION:

> Again, Dallas, you ask me:
> 
> >Did you find any changes in meaning?
> 
> Dallas, there are some 665 changes.  I would have to look at each change
> and compare it to the original 1889 edition.
> 
> But the important question is:   "Why did the 'editor' of the Theosophy
> Company edition decide to make changes, then went ahead and made the
> changes, and did NOT alert readers to those changes (however minor or
> insignificant that editor or you may deem the changes)?"
> 
> And if this "editor" can make 665 "silent" changes, why be so critical
> of editing by G.R.S Mead or Boris de Zirkoff of THE SECRET DOCTRINE?

AND MY FIFTH QUESTION (WHICH IS A NEW ONE) IS AS FOLLOWS:

Dallas, in light of all these corrections in the Theosophy Company's
edition of the VOICE, will you in the future continue to use/recommend
the TC edition?  

And if you answer yes, why would you prefer this TC edition instead of,
for example, the Theosophical University Press's current edition which
has the same pagination as the original and is truly verbatim with the
1889 edition of the VOICE?

Maybe I have belabored the point, but these questions are worth asking
especially in light of what you have written many times previously on
the importance of facsimiles, etc. of HPB's writings.

Thanking you in advance for your answers.

Daniel H. Caldwell