Theos-Talk Archives (September 1998 Message tl00053)

Dallas wrote:

> I have stated what I found personally in regard to the T. Co.
> Edition.  My answers made earlier today to you are based on the
> 1892 edition of the VOICE I have in hand (and the 1987 printing
> of the T. Co. edition), and I assumed (was I wrong ?)  that the
> 1892 edition was the same printing as the original, which I do
> not have at hand.  I note in it that on p. 42, and p. 69 the word
> is "Upadhyaya."  In Sanskrit this would be correct as I have
> heard Pundits pronounce it.  Was it " Upadhya" in the original
> 1889 edition ?  As I said, mine is not with me.

Daniel replies:

Dallas, let us be as clear on this matter as possible so that all
interested readers of this exchange will have a better understanding of
the underlying issues.

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?

Dallas wrote:

> I stated earlier to you that it is quite clear to me that the T.
> Co. edition of the text of the VOICE has changes in format,
> punctuation, numbering, footnotes, and even in the spelling of
> some of the "foreign" words (as diacritical marks were not used).
> No argument there.  Why should I not recommend the T. Co. edition
> ?  Did you find any changes in meaning ?  The difference in the
> PREFACE as to the spelling of "Bhagavad Gita / Bhagavadgita" seem
> to me to fall under this.  In any case that is not the TEXT of
> the VOICE.

Daniel replies:

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?

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.  How many ULT
associates currently know that this edition is "edited" and "changed"
from the original 1889 edition?

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?

I am looking forward to Tony Maddock's and Paul Bazzer's assessments of
the 665 "changes in punctuation, italics, quotation marks, capitals,
spelling of Sanskrit words, omission of the important diacritical marks
over the vowels, and others" in the current edition of the Voice issued
by The Theosophy Company.

Thanks, Dallas, for your replies.