Note on a. Stael-Holstein's "double publication".
Qilong, Wang
In the current academic climate, in which scholars regularly publish similar or nearly identical material in several different forms and venues, the case of a past scholar's inadvertent "double publication" and his reaction to it can be instructive. Baron A. von Stael-Holstein (1877-1937), a scholar of Tibetology and Buddhology, is the person in question. In Stael-Holstein's works we find two papers that are quite similar in contents and were published at almost the same time:
1. "On Two Tibetan Pictures Representing Some of the Spiritual Ancestors of the Dalai-Lama and of the Panchen Lama," Bulletin of the National Library of Peiping (BNLP) 6 (1932) 150-127, with two plates.
2. "Notes on Two Lama Paintings," Journal of the American Oriental Society (JAOS) 52 (1932) 338-49, with two plates.
The story of this double publication is contained in the correspondence of Stael-Holstein, now preserved in the Harvard-Yenching Library.
On December 10th 1932 Horace H. F. Jayne, the editor of the short-lived journal Eastern Art, wrote from Philadelphia to Stael-Holstein in China to inform him that, as Eastern Art was being discontinued and could not publish his paper, he had forwarded it to JAOS. Dear Baron: I wish to acknowledge your letter of October 22nd in which you enclose your check for 12.00 to cover the expense of returning your manuscript. I am extremely sorry that there has been so much delay in this matter but we have not been able to see at all clearly the means for continuing Eastern Art and on the table it seemed wisest to tell you definitely that it was not appearing since Sickman thought you had some other possibility for it. I had thought that perhaps Norman Brown could use it in the Journal of the American Oriental Society and turned it over to him for consideration. I am asking him to return it directly to you and giving him the check that you so kindly enclosed to cover expenses. Yours Sincerely [Sig] Horace H. F. Jayne
On December 28th Jayne telegraphed Stael-Holstein to request his authorization for JAOS to publish his "Notes on Two Lama Paintings." As soon as Stael-Holstein received the telegram, he immediately replied by telegram asking Jayne to inform JAOS of his negative answer because the paper had been published in another journal. Because of the delays in communication at that period, Stael-Holstein did not get Jayne's December 10th letter before receiving his telegram of December 28th, by which time the revised paper had already been published in BNEP, Peking. At this point he telegraphed Jayne to stop the JAOS publication. But Jayne had already had it published without Stael-Holstein's authorization. And it was already too late, on receiving the Journal in February 1933, for the author to correct this "double publication."
Stael-Holstein was very disturbed about this. On February 21st, 1933, he wrote to George T. Chase, Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Harvard, to explain the case of "double-publication" and his dealings with the American Oriental Society. (Though Stael-Holstein lived in Beijing, he was officially professor of Central Asian Philology at Harvard, presiding over his Sino-Indian Institute, which had become a part of Harvard-Yenching Institute after his appointment as professor in 1929.) My dear Dean Chase, The negligence of the "Eastern Art" editors, owing to which two versions of my article have almost simultaneously appeared in two different periodicals, has caused me a great, deal of annoyance. In order to repair the damage as far as possible I have, in a letter dated Febr. 21st 1933, asked the editor of the Journal of the American Oriental Society to publish a statement, which I write in the next issue of the J.A.O.S. I am, naturally, very anxious to know whether my statement (a photograph of which I enclose) will appear in the J.A.O.S., and I, therefore venture to ask you to let me know about it by cable. I suppose you can easily find out whether my statement will be printed by ringing up the Yale University Press, New Haven, Conn. Please show this letter and the enclosed photographs to Professor Blake, Professor Clark, and Dr. Ware. I have already written to Professor Woods. Before the end of this month I shall write you a longer letter. Believe me yours sincerely and gratefully. Stael-Holstein
The full statement that he wished JAOS to publish runs as follows:
On two versions of the same article which almost simultaneously appeared in iwo different periodicals When, in November 1932. I wrote my article "On two Tibetan pictures representing some of the spiritual ancestors of the Dalai Lama and of the Panchen Lama", which the Bulletin of the National Library of Peiping printed in December 1932, I never expected that an earlier version of the same article, written in July 1931, would appear in the number of the Journal of the American Oriental Society which was to reach Peiping on February 20th 1933. My article which so unexpectedly appeared in No. 52 (pages 338-349) of the J.A.O.S. was (in 1931) written for, and accepted by, the year-book "Eastern Art" which did not, however, publish it, because the management "have not been able to sec at all clearly the means for continuing" their periodical. Without consulting me one of the "Eastern Art" editors turned over my manuscript to the J.A.O.S. On December 29th 1932 a friend of mine received the following radiogram from the "Eastern Art" editor: Journal of American Oriental Society an[x]ious to publish Staelholstein's article urge acceptance, to which we replied categorically by cable on December 31st 1932: Staelholstein article already printed Peking Journal kindly refuse Oriental Society. It is, therefore, clear that the first version of my article appeared in the J.A.O.S. contrary to my wishes and instructions. The two versions of the article were not written at the same time (the J.A.O.S version in July 1931, and the B.N.L.P. version in November 1932), and they differ from one another, mainly owing to the fact that the earlier version was not intended for the J.A.O.S., but for a periodical of a different character ("Eastern Art"). I would therefore ask the readers of the J.A.O.S. who are interested in Tibetan history to examine the revised and considerably enlarged version of my article printed by the Bulletin of the National Library of Peiping.
On March 17th 1933, Mr. A. T. Johnson, the American minister stationed in Peking, wrote Prof. Stael-Holstein about the misunderstanding: My dear Baron: With further reference to our conversation of last evening, in the course of which I expressed my interest in the fact that, after receiving from you the reprint of your article "On two Tibetan pictures representing some of the spiritual ancestors of the Dalai Lama and of the Panchen Lama" printed by the Bulletin of the National Library of Peiping, I noted in my copy of the Journal of the American Oriental Society, on pages 338 ct seq., your article "Notes on two Lama paintings": You have now given me for perusal the copies of the declaration which you have asked the American Oriental Society to publish in this Journal explanatory of this situation. I have read the letter which you received from Mr. Jayne dated December 10th, as well as the telegram which you received from him dated December 28th asking for permission to publish in the Journal of the American Oriental Society. I also have the photograph of the certified copy of your telegram to Mr. Jayne dated December 31st requesting him to inform the American Oriental Society that you could not let them have the article because it had already been published. It seems to me that you did everything that you could do under the circumstances to inform those responsible at home of the situation here. As far back as December 10th Mr. Jayne was endeavoring to get the article returned to you. Now, I do not know when the American Oriental Society's Journal, Volume 52, No. 4, for December, 1932, went to press, although the cover indicates that it was published on December 30, 1932, two days after Mr. Jayne sent his telegram requesting permission to publish. My copy of the Oriental Society's Journal came to me about two weeks ago. If the date on the cover of the Journal has any significance at all, the article published therein must have been set up and ready for the press very shortly after December 30, 1932, if not before, and it seems therefore that you have a very reasonable complaint against the Journal for having put your article without your permission. Very sincerely, [Sig]A. T. Johnson
On March 24th 1933, John K. Shryoek, an editor of JAOS, wrote to Miss Bayley, the secretary of Harvard-Yenching Institute, to explain the matter of Stael-Holstein's "double-publication" and promise to publish some statement: My dear Mr. Bayley: Baron von Stael-Holstein's article "On two Tibetan Pictures" was published in this journal in the last issue. Vol. 52. No. 4, December, 1932. It was not sent to us by the Baron himself, and we have had no direct communication from him concerning it. If he, or you, wish some statement made with regard to it, we will be glad to publish it. We cannot do it in the April issue, which is already out, but can publish it in June. The proofs of the article were corrected by Dr. Ware, and the original manuscript is, or was, with the printer, J. H. Furst Co., 12-20 Hopkins Place. Baltimore. Sincerely, [Sig.]J. K. Shryock
On April 9th 1933 Shryock wrote to Dean Chase at Harvard, once again to explain the matter of Stael-Holstein's "double-publication": My dear Mr. Clease [sic]: When I wrote you before I knew nothing about developments in the matter of Von Stael-Holstein's article. The only part I had was reading the manuscript and telling the senior editor. Norman Brown, that I thought it was worth publishing. Since then Mr. Brown has told me the rest of the story. He tells me that Von Stael-Holstein's statement is too long to print, and moreover, does not give all the facts. Brown is preparing a note for the June number of the journal, which will give not only the Baron's point of view, but that of Jayne and of Brown. Von Stael-Holstien did ask Jayne to get the article published for him, and did not tell him that he had given the material to another journal until he received Jayne's telegram. By that time the issue of the J.A.OS. containing the article had already been printed and was in the mails. If you wish to see Brown's note before it appears in print. I'd suggest your writing direct to him, I'm very sorry for the whole mix-up, as I suppose everyone is. The editors of the J.A.O.S. simply took Jayne's word without communicating directly with Peking. Sincerely, [Sig]John Shryock
On April 12th 1933 Chase replied: My dear Professor Shryock:- Thanks for your letter of April 9th. Since the Baron was so much upset, I think it is only fair to him if I see the note which is to go to the June JAOS, and I am writing today directly to Prof. Brown. I haven't the least doubt that the note will clear everything up, but, having a New England conscience, I suppose I ought to carry out the Baron's wishes as fully as I can. Sincerely yours, [Sig] Chase
In order to solve the problem, W. Norman Brown, the editor of JAOS, wrote Dean Chase on May 4th 1933: Dear Dr. Chase: I am enclosing herewith a copy of the note which the JAOS is planning to carry in reference to Baron von Stael-Holstein's article. His letter seemed to me too long to use; but I believe this note covers the case sufficiently. It was an unfortunate occurrence, especially when the funds of the JAOS are so low as to make very regrettable any wasting of space. Sincerely yours, [Sig]W. Norman Brown
On May 9th 1933, Professor Chase wrote Stael-Holstein in reply to the Baron's letter of February 28th, forwarding the anxious Baron the short statement to be published in JAOS. The relevant parts of the letter are as follows: My dear Professor von Stael-Holstein:- I have waited to answer your letter of February 28th until everything was clear about the note for the JAOS. Just lately, I have heard from Prof. Norman W. Brown that he intends to place in the June number a note as follows:- In consequence of a misunderstanding of the editors of this Journal, the editors of Eastern Art. and Baron A. von Stael-Holstein, the Journal published in Volume 52, part 4 (December, 1932) an article by Baron von Stael-Holstein entitled "Notes on Two Lama paintings" at the same time when a revised version of the same article entitled "On two Tibetan pictures representing Some of the Spiritual Ancestors of the Dalai Lama and of the Panchen Lama" appeared in the Bulletin of the National Library of the National Library of Peiping, December, 1932. He wrote me that he felt that this brief note covers the case, and it seemed to me that this was so. I don't wonder that you were disturbed at the double publication, but everyone, of course, would understand that it must have come about through some misunderstanding. Certainly, you ought not to feel that your friends here would ever suspect you of trying to arrange any double publication of this sort. ... Sincerely yours, [Chase]
And so the story came to an acceptable end. But it is striking, especially today, to observe the seriousness with which all parties took the accidental double publication. In particular, Stael-Holstein, in order to protect his academic reputation, had no hesitation in spending almost half a year, and numerous communications, to clear up the matter.
WANG QILONG
SOUTHWEST UNIVERSITY FOR NATIONALITIES, CHENGDU, CHINA
