HPB on "thin oblong squares" as found in the original edition of THE VOICE
- Wes recently wrote on this forum:
". . . when Judge reprinted 'The Voice of the Silence' in New York in
1893, he did some minor editing and rearranged the footnotes to
appear on the text pages instead of at the back of the book. So, when
The Theosophy Company went to re-publish the Voice, there were two
editions to choose from: Blavatsky's and Judge's. Which one should we
have published? HPB's 'original' text, or Judge's edition which was a
bit easier to use? The Theosophy Company editors apparently decided
to use Judge's, relying on his known skill as an editor."
But compare the above with what Dallas wrote previously on this forum:
"In U.L.T. I don't have t[o] worry -- the originals are available on
a reliable basis. . . . Personally I would rather deal with
H.P.Blavatsky's 'mistakes' than with those created by others who have
had the temerity to believe they knew better than she did, and had
the audacity to introduce changes which she did not authorize. Strong
language, but true if it is applicable."
A detailed example of the "minor(?) editing" Judge did can be found
in the following article:
"Thin Oblong Squares" pp. 1-4
As the writer observes later in the same article:
"Clearly then, this is no mistake [by HPB], no idle phrase or term
that HPB is using in the Voice. So again, one might ask why [did
Judge] change it in the Voice Of The Silence, why [did he] remove the
word 'squares' to leave the phrase 'thin oblongs'?"
To paraphrase Dallas' "strong language," did Judge have the temerity
to believe he knew better than she did? Did he have the audacity to
introduce changes which she did not authorize?
Probably, when Dallas was using his "strong language", he was
referring to Besant, Mead or de Zirkoff and their "editing" of
H.P.B.'s writings. But what's good for the goose is good for the
It would appear from the article that H.P. Blavatsky knew exactly
what she was doing when she wrote "thin oblong squares."
In this instance Judge's "minor editing" created a new mistake; it
was not a mistake by HPB!
Daniel H. Caldwell
BLAVATSKY STUDY CENTER/BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
for more comments on the editing of the
Theosophy Company's edition of THE VOICE OF THE
- Saturday, April 9, 2005, 3:02:39 AM, Daniel wrote:
> See:Daniel, do you know if "The Key to Theosophy", "The Secret Doctrine"
> for more comments on the editing of the
> Theosophy Company's edition of THE VOICE OF THE
and "Isis Unveiled" reprinted by the ULT have any discrepancies from
the originals? These are claimed to be facsimiles. Are they indeed?
- I think, that the original cover of "The Secret Doctrine" has been changed a
The proces of printing the book is also different. The paper used as pages
is - as far as I know - also of a different kind.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vladimir" <forums@...>
To: "Daniel H. Caldwell" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2005 9:10 AM
Subject: Re: Theos-World HPB on "thin oblong squares" as found in the
original edition of THE VOICE
> Saturday, April 9, 2005, 3:02:39 AM, Daniel wrote:
>> for more comments on the editing of the
>> Theosophy Company's edition of THE VOICE OF THE
> Daniel, do you know if "The Key to Theosophy", "The Secret Doctrine"
> and "Isis Unveiled" reprinted by the ULT have any discrepancies from
> the originals? These are claimed to be facsimiles. Are they indeed?
> Best regards,
> Yahoo! Groups Links
"Daniel, do you know if 'The Key to Theosophy',
'The Secret Doctrine' and 'Isis Unveiled' reprinted
by the ULT have any discrepancies from the originals?
These are claimed to be facsimiles. Are they indeed?"
AFAIK, these three reprints are photographic
facsimiles of the originals.