Theos-Talk Archives (August 2004 Message tt00344)

The most striking error in my eyes is the unproperly sources. Not 
crediting the person who made the discovery is vanity and theft 
combined. The worth of such a work lies in the sources; that is the 
foundation for future research.

I think highly of Deveney's and Godwin's studies (Deveney: Paschal 
Berely Randolph and the Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor, Godwin amonst 
others: Theosophical Enlightenment, Arktos: the Polar Myth, or his 
forword in the beautiful reprint of Songe de Polyphile). Not sourcing 
them is a shame. It is silly too, as these two authors have produced 
excellent studies; it would only have enrichened the book by 
demonstrating that the author had studied these works.

When I wrote my book on John Worrell Keely (See HPB, The Secret 
Doctrine, the Coming Force chapter), I made especial care of sourcing 
every step I took. Nowadays, 6 years after it was published in the USA, 
I am still very pleased with the notes section.

Regards,

Theo

kpauljohnson wrote:
(snip)

> ...The acknowledgments of sources are curiously phrased--
> ambiguous at best and ungracious at worst-- capable of leaving the
> impression that the editor unearthed some rare letter in the original
> obscure source...[Deveney here cites two cases in which documentary
> discoveries by Joscelyn Godwin are not acknowledged and another in
> which Ted Davy's research is not acknowledged]...the credit for the
> research lies elsewhere, and due acknowledgment should have been
> given... 
> (snip)