|
Commentary on M. D. Bown's Book of Mormon / Spalding MS Parallels Numbers 01-14 (Full Commentary) by Dale R. Broadhurst Revision 0a: September, 1998 Editorial and Bibliographic Information |
|
Some On-line Textual Resources: 1. Search the Book of Mormon: LDS and RLDS texts (side-by-side scrolling comparison) 2. Search the Book of Mormon: Current LDS edition (includes phrase search) 3. Search the Book of Mormon: 1830 edition (includes concordance functions) 4. Search the Spalding MS: Special e-text version (includes concordance functions) 5. Search the Spalding MS: Special e-text (side-by-side with 1830 Book of Alma) 6. Search the Spalding MS: LDS 1910 edition (the edition used in Bown's citations) 7. Read Holley's book: Book of Mormon: A Closer Look (Spalding / BoM Comparisons) 8. Search the Bible: King James version (includes Apocrypha & concordance functions) 9. Search Ethan Smith's Book: View of the Hebrews (includes concordance functions) |
|
01. Both are accounts of early inhabitants of America Full comments on item #01: Bown generalizes the accounts of the two stories. Further observations could include the parallel that all three "records" (the Roman, Jaredite, and Lehite) contain accounts of Old World peoples who eventually become New World inhabitants through overseas migration. Bown errs in saying Spalding "offers no suggestion concerning the actual origin of the Indians." He has Fabius reason that "the earth therefore must be a globe" and that part of Asia must lie close to North America, partly because the pre-Columbian inhabitants' "tradition tells them that they emigrated from the westward." Presumably Lobaska, Spalding's great reformer, also came to North America from somewhere in Asia. Since Lobaska's descendants became the leading imperial families of Spalding's romance, we might cautiously say that in both accounts at least some of the New World inhabitants originally came from Asia. Bown doesn't mention the Book of Mormon's Mulekite culture. The origins and fate of this group of pre-Columbians are unknown. This fact, in itself, offers a partial parallel to the vaguely stated origins of Spalding's non-Roman pre-Columbians. Also, while early Mormons typically identified all the American native tribes with the Book of Mormon's Lamanites, informed Latter Day Saints of more recent years would generally not make such claims. 02. In both accounts the civilization of these inhabitants was much higher than that of the modern Indian. Full comments on item #02: Bown wrote during a period when most people thought that a nation's possession of a developed technology and a demonstration of its conquest of Nature obviously indicated its cultural superiority. A more thoughtful consideration of certain native tribes might lead us to the conclusion that their ancient cultures were "higher" than that of the post-Columbian arrivals. Certainly many native peoples were as "civilized" as their European conquerors, if we except possession of firearms and disease immunity from the list of civilizing factors. This point aside, Bown is correct in showing that both Spalding and the Book of Mormon writers portray some of the ancient inhabitants of the Americas as possessing a more developed technology and a higher degree of social organization than most of the native peoples possessed when Columbus arrived. Both works obviously portray a devolution of "civilization" from the glory days of each record's respective period of peace and prosperity. 03. Both works pretend to be records of events that actually occurred, and not mere fiction. Full comments on item #03: Bown quickly betrays his lack of objectivity in prejudging the Nephite record to be only a pretender to the status of true history. It may be that it will someday be shown to be a kind of historical fiction; but, then again, that question may always be a matter of debate. After noting Bown's views on this point, we should read the rest of his paper with a certain caution, making at least some attempt to separate his personal opinions from the researched findings he attempts to relay. It is very difficult to determine whether Spalding intended his unfinished romance to be an obvious historical fiction possessing a few elements of verisimilitude; or whether he expected at least the more gullible segment of his readers to consider it as possible fact. In some parts Spalding gives the appearance of having carefully constructed his story to be a believable history. In other parts he provides the reader with awkward attempts at humor, exaggeration, coincidence, and half-hidden, sarcastic social commentary that make his work fully unbelievable. We can easily come away from reading Spalding believing that he intended all he wrote to be a greater parody than anything ever offered by Swift or Irving. But another reading, concentrating on his religious material, might convince us that he was the sort of fellow who would have attempted to foist a "sacred roll" of his own moralizing on his less learned neighbors. At any rate, Bown is correct in saying that both works present themselves as being true histories, first recorded in ancient times by real record-keepers. 04. Include religious and moral as well as historical accounts. Full comments on item #04: Bown directs our attention to an important fact in demonstrating Spalding's preoccupation with religion in scripting his story. The subject is never far out of sight in his narrative; even when he does not not mention it directly, we can sense his forming story elements that will eventually call for some theological and religious explanations or consequences. Since the former clergyman drops his more obviously Christian religious elements after the story's opening sequence, further developments might appear rather non-religious to the casual reader. Nothing could be less true; the whole of Spalding's story is a critique of the social, political, and religious practices of his day, portrayed under the thin disguise of ancient, non-Christian history. There are places in the Book of Mormon where direct religious references become rather thin on the ground; but, as in Spalding's story, even the seemingly non-religious parts are set within a deeply religious context. The primary difference in the two works, from a religious history aspect, is that we can sense that Spalding is either an atheist or an agnostic deist fairly quickly in reading his romance. We do not need to turn to his statement of non-belief in the Christian religion to recognize that any early 19th century American writer expressing the notions he has given us in his romance stands firmly in the camp of Paine and Jefferson. The Book of Mormon is never so obvious in its condemnation of post-colonial American religion. While it admits to addressing the contemporary reader, and to telling that reader the story of unfaithfulness, unbelief, and priestcraft in days of old, it always provides a strong Judeo-Christian alternative to past wrongdoings. Spalding fails to do this, and that failure provides us with one of the most significant un-parallels between his romance and the Book of Mormon story. 05. Both works use "Bible language." Full comments on item #05: Bown is not particularly clear about what he sees as being "Bible language" in both works. The Book of Mormon was written as scripture and called a "gold bible" even before its text was available in print. We should not be surprised to see that its overall pattern of construction is somewhat like that of the Judeo-Christian scriptures, or that its internal elements echo biblical prototypes. From this point of view Spalding's romance is only vaguely biblical in its construction and composition. It more resembles a pastiche of 18th century books of exploration and discovery, with bits and pieces of MacPherson's "Ossian" and Livy's "History of Rome" thrown in for good measure. But, having said this, we must also admit that Spalding can sound "biblical" when he cares to -- mainly, as Bown has indicated, in his attempts at moralizing and other pseudo-scriptural creations. To a much lesser degree than the Nephite writers, Spalding also makes use of the same textual devices found in the Book of Mormon, where biblical textual fragments occur inter-woven with decidedly non-biblical language. Here and there Spalding uses the archaic language of Shakespeare's day. This language may be typified by the text of the Authorized version of the English Church's Bible, but that hardly makes it exclusively "Bible language." The atheist or deist Spalding used fragments of archaic English to add the color of antiquity and authority to his "idolatrous" pseudo-history, rather like James MacPherson had done before him when he wrote his "Poems of Ossian." When we draw parallels between Spalding's text and the Book of Mormon text, we should make this distinction quite clear. Only then can we begin to identify any significant phraseology parallels both works may share with the printed text of the "King James" Bible. There is no denying that both works do incorporate some of that text in somewhat similar ways and for similar purposes. Bown would have done better to have demonstrated this peculiarity than to have simply quoted Spalding's commandments. 06. Some proper names are similar. Full comments on item #06: Since Bown was unable to consult the original Oberlin MS, his extraction of Spalding names from the error-ridden 1886 printed edition and its 1910 reprint is problematic. Bown's presentation of erroneous Spalding names is compounded by his own mis-spellings, along with the fact that some of the Spalding names occur was various spellings even in the original. The six Spalding names cited should read: "Conco," "Lamoch," "Labanco," "Hanock," "Moonrod," and "Rancoff." Spalding's "Hanock" may sound vaguely like the Book of Mormon's "Hamath," and "Labanco" is a close match with its "Laban." But such similarities are likely coincidental and do not contribute enough information for Bown to have drawn his intended parallel. The only real name or proper noun matches in the two texts are "Jesus Christ," "Egypt," and "Chaldea" / "Chaldeans." Bown missed the fact that many of the original names in the two texts are constructed in the same way: by adding new prefixes and suffixes to syllables occurring in an ancestor's or relatives name ( Laman / Helaman; Moroni / Moronihah; Labamack / Labanco; Hamback / Hamboon, etc.) Bown might have drawn an interesting, though somewhat less substantial, parallel by citing the fact that some of the names in the two texts are found in the old classics. The Book of Mormon's "Helorum" is found in Livy's History of Rome, Spalding's "Helicon" is found in Virgil's Aeneid, and both works contain names which echo some of the original names found in MacPherson's Poems of Ossian. 07. Both use a similar literary device to support a claim of historical authenticity. Full comments on item #07: Here Bown strays from his original examination of the two texts to a consideration of external sources. Strictly speaking, similarities in the accounts of the coming forth of the two works are not parallels of material found within the texts themselves. The account of Joseph Smith, jr. having obtained and brought forth the Nephite record may be printed in certain modern versions of the Book of Mormon, but it was not part of its text as it was first printed in 1830. The similarities in the Smith discovery account and the Spalding discovery account are adequately described in Lester E. Bush. jr.'s 1977 Dialogue article: "The Spalding Theory Then and now." Mormons do not dispute these parallels, but they are best viewed separately from an examination of the texts themselves. The Spalding MS is damaged at the point where Bown sees the "twenty-eight sheets of parchment" reported in the LDS 1886 printed edition. The RLDS 1885 printed edition has "twenty-eight rolls of parchment" and the 1996 BYU printed edition has "twenty eig[ht ---] of parchment." Since Spalding immeditly go on to speak of the contents of a "roll" containing Fabius' history and later gives extractions from a "sacred roll," the 1885 printing's reconstruction is almost certainly the correct one. Having missed this fact, Bown was unable to draw the parallel of the two sets of records containing multiple volumes by various authors. He also missed the parallel that the entire content of neither work was to be printed in its initial publication. In both cases a portion of the record was to be held back from public view until some later day. 08. In each case the original records were written by individuals who actually lived during the time of the events related. Full comments on item #08: Spalding is unclear as to where in his romance he is quoting from Fabius' "roll" and where he might be adding extracts from the "sacred roll" or other accounts left by his imaginary ancient bards, learned men, and record-keepers. Presumably, since Spalding was translating his story from Latin into English, he depended upon Fabius to first summarize the ancient history from written and oral sources. The Book of Mormon contains a variety of writings, not all of which were autographs, even where they occurred in the texts consulted for "abridgment" by the Nephite record-keepers. Bown is generally correct in his drawing a parallel between the internal claims that the two accounts were composed in pre-Columbian times by the peoples whose stories they contain. 09. Both related events occuring during several hundred years. Full comments on item #09: The timeline in Spalding's romance is probably roughly the same as that found in the Nephite record. The original Jaredite record would, of course, pre-date both accounts. Presumably Spalding's Lobaska came to the Americas from Asia sometime after the popularization of written communication in the Old World. It would not be unreasonable to date his appearance to the period between 600 and 200 BCE. Allowing a couple of decades between that appearance and the beginning of Spalding's 480 years of "uninterrupted peace" might yield a date for the commencement of his great war of extermination anywhere between 100 BCE and 300-350 CE. Fabius would have arrived on the shores of the New World in perhaps around 330 CE and would have deposited his Latin "roll" and other writings in the ground of Ohio no later than 400 CE. Spalding has Fabius quoting some of the events from the great war from bards who composed their accounts some time after the days when those events occurred. This consideration, coupled with the observation that Fabius arrived during a period when at least a remnant of the ancient Ohians (or Ohons) still occupied the upper Ohio valley, leads me to suspect that the culmination of the great war of extinction was reached between 330 and 400 CE. Spalding does not explain how Fabius came to know of the war or whether he and his company of Romans took any part in its battles. Perhaps he saw the possible contradictions in the various parts of his storyline and decided to discontinue his writing at a point before he had fully worked out all the details of the great extermination in his own head. 10. The extant records represent abridgements of the originals. Full comments on item #10: Both accounts do represent themselves as being condensations of larger works. The term "abridgement" is not commonly found in ancient texts. Except for a single occurance in 2Maccabees 2:28 (Apocrypha, KJV ) it is non-biblical. It is, however, found once in the English translation of Livy's History of Rome (vol. III, 1912 Everyman's Library edition). 11. The records were deposited for safekeeping by the historian himself. Full comments on item #11: Writer Vernal Holley expands this parallel somewhat by saying: "Both accounts state that the abridgement will be buried along with the original so that it will not be destroyed and will come forth in a future age when the Europeans (gentiles) inhabit this land . . . Each author makes a statement about the truthfulness of his work and urges the reader to peruse the translated volume with a pure heart . . ." It is unclear whether the Fabius history roll constituted an abridgement of the other 27 rolls recovered in Spalding's fictional discovery. Assuming that the Ohians' governmental constitution, their sacred roll, and the songs of their bards were among the other 27 rolls recovered, Fabius may have condensed portions of those texts, at least, for inclusion in his history roll. It is only Spalding who calls for the reader to maintain a "pure" heart; Moroni requires the reader to maintain a "sincere" heart after having read the record, while praying for a testimony of the account's truthfulness. It is puzzling that Spalding should desire a similar response from his readers, immediately after his addressing their possible skepticism in accepting the record. Perhaps he was trying to say that pure-hearted readers would accept his account's truthfulness. At any rate, it is Spalding, not Fabius, who thus addresses the reader at this point, and that fact lessens the strength of Holley's parallel. Bown's observation, however, is solid, and can be ammended with Holley's statement that the one burying the records did so for the benefit of a future, different American audience. Spalding's future (c. 1816?) readers might use the lessons contained in his record to build a better society; while the Book of Mormon readers might be inclined to accept and help spread a restored gospel; build a "New Jerusalem" on the borders of the Lamanites; and await the second coming. 12. They were subsequently found in a box buried in the ground. (See my comments on item #7) 13. The cover had to be pried up, (See my comments on item #7) 14. The records required translation. Full comments on item #14: Bown could have strengthened his parallel by noting that both records were written in an ancient language not previously known to have been used in the pre-Columbian Americas. He might have also added that the text provided in Spalding's romance seems a bit lengthy for a single scroll written in ancient Latin and that the Romans were generally writing in books, not scrolls, by Fabius' day. The Nephite record also seems a bit wordy to have been contained in a manageable set of engraved plates, even given the capacity of single "characters" to convey multi-word messages. It seems unbelieveable that a Vermont clergyman with a Dartmouth education would be capable of reading and translating an idiomatic 4th century Latin text, which itself was composed primarily of renderings of native American words. But perhaps that is no more unbelieveable than the story that such a translator would elect to have his singularly important translation privately published by an obscure Pittsburgh bookstore and printing job-shop. Were we to consider more of these external facts, the story of Smith's translating and publishing efforts might further strain the credulity of non-Mormon readers. |
|
Full ommentary on Bown: [Index] < - > [full com 15-24] [full com 25-47] [full com 48-59] [full com 60-78] [full com 79-99] [Bown's Notes] [Names Index] [Editorial & Bibliographic Info.] The Spalding Studies Home Page: [Introduction] [Site Map & Index] [Links] [E-mail Site Host] revision 0a: September, 1998 |