« AnkstesnisTęsti »
created by inventing some new form in which to cast the English language.
Our cousins on the other side of the water are a little unreasonable in expecting from us a literature cast into some new form. They threw up their hats when Walt Whitman appeared, but Walt Whitman is a more egregious blunderer than Carlyle was, with a smaller supply of brains. We believe we appreciate all the vitalities of Walt Whitman's literary performances, but his productions, in their forms, are simply abominable. They are literary eccentricities. He will do less damage than Carlyle has done, because he has no followers or imitators. No self-respectful littérateur would risk his reputation by seriously issuing a poem after Whitman's Even those who praise him and his bar
barisms would scorn the use of his forms in any production whatever.
The English and American literatures are certain to run together and to mingle in a common stream. The two nations are constantly getting nearer to each other. They speak and write the same language, and each reads the classics of that language. Different institutions, different climates, different circumstances, will endow each literature with a different spirit, and in this spirit must be found the characterizing flavor and power of each. Each must bow to the same laws and limitations, and shun all those eccentricities of form, structure, and style which oppose the usages of the masters and confuse and sophisticate the idioms of the mothertongue.
The Book of Mormon.
TO THE EDITOR OF SCRIBNER'S MONTHLY. SIR In the number of this magazine for August, 1880, appeared an article by myself entitled "The Book of Mormon." That article contained a statement, together with evidence substantiating it in part, by Mrs. McKinstry, a daughter of the Rev. Solomon Spaulding, that the Book of Mormon was derived from a novel called “The Manuscript Found,” written by her father in 1812, and that the manuscript of this novel was in 1834 delivered to one D. P. Hurlburt.
When the article appeared, there seemed to be no other proof that this manuscript was delivered to Hurlburt. Believing it to be important to follow up this clue, I recently visited Hurlburt at his home near Gibsonburg, Sandusky County, Ohio, in company with Oscar Kellogg, Esq., a well-known lawyer of that vicinity. As the result of this visit, I have received the following sworn statement:
"GIBSONBURG, OHIO, January 10th, 1881. "To all whom it may concern: In the year eighteen hundred and thirty-four (1834), I went from Geauga County, Ohio, to Munson, Hampden County, Massachusetts, where I found Mrs. Davison, late widow of the Rev. Solomon Spaulding, late of Conneaut, Ashtabula County, Ohio. Of her I obtained a manuscript, supposing it to be the manuscript of the romance written by the said Solomon Spaulding, called the Manuscript Found,' which was reported to be the foundation of the Book of Mormon.' I did not examine the manuscript until I got home, when upon examination I found it to contain nothing of the kind, but being a manuscript upon an entirely different subject. This manuscript I left with É. D. Howe, of Painesville, Geauga County, Ohio, now Lake County, Ohio, with the understanding that when he had examined it, he should return it to the widow. Said Howe says the manuscript was destroyed by fire, and further the deponent saith not. "(Signed) D. P. HURLBURT.
"Sworn to and subscribed before me this 10th day of January, 1881. "(Signed) J. KINNIGER, "Mayor of the Village of Gibsonburg, Sandusky County, Ohio."
In this statement Hurlburt gives the impression that he procured this manuscript from Mrs. Davison at Munson, Massachusetts, but Mrs. McKinstry, in her statement, says he got it by an order addressed to Jerome Clark, at Hartwick, Otsego County, New York, and this is undoubtedly the truth. In fact, Hurlburt admitted as much to me before Mr. Kellogg, in the conversation I had with him at his house in Gibsonburg. This is further confirmed by George Clark, a son of the above-mentioned Jerome Clark, and his wife, in two letters copied below.
In a former statement signed by Hurlburt,-the original of which is in my possession,-dated August 19th, 1880, he says: "I do not know whether or not the document I received from Mrs. Davison was Spaulding's Manuscript Found,' as I never read it."
In the conversation I had with Hurlburt at his house, and before Mr. Kellogg, he admitted that he "just peeped into the manuscript, and saw the names Mormon, Maroni, Nephi, and Lamenite."
The original "Manuscript Found" was in existence at Onondaga Valley, Onondaga County, New York, in 1818, as appears in the following statement, never before published. Mrs. Redfield is now liv ing at Syracuse, New York.
"SYRACUSE, June 17th, 1880. "In the year 1818, I was principal of the Onondaga Valley Academy, and resided in the house of William H. Sabine, Esq. I remember Mrs. Spaulding, Mr. Sabine's sister, perfectly, and hearing her and the family talk of a manuscript in her possession which her husband, the Rev. Mr. Spaulding, had written somewhere in the West. I did not read the manuscript, but its substance was so often mentioned, and the peculiarity of the story, that years afterward, when the Mormon Bible was published, I procured a copy, and at once recognized the re
semblance between it and Mrs. Spaulding's account of the Manuscript Found.' I remember, also, to have heard Mr. Sabine talk of the romance, and that he and Mrs. Spaulding said it had been written in the leisure hours of an invalid, who read it to his neighbors for their amusement. Mrs. Spaulding believed that Sidney Rigdon had copied the manuscript while it was in Patterson's printing-office in Pittsburgh. She spoke of it with regret. I never saw her after her marriage with Mr. Davison, at Hartwick.
"(Signed) ANN TREADWELL Redfield."
The original" Manuscript Found was in existence at Hartwick, N. Y., in 1831, as appears by the following letters, never before published, of George Clark, the son of the Jerome Clark above
"SONOMA, CAL., Dec. 30th, 1880. "MRS. ELLEN E. DICKINSON.
"DEAR MADAM: I remember that Mrs. Davison spent a winter in my father's house nearly fifty years ago, and left there to go to Munson, Massachusetts. A year or two later she wrote to my father to sell her effects, bureau, feather-bed, linen, etc., and remit the proceeds to her, which he did. The old trunk still remained in the garret when I sold the farm, in 1864, and was given away, to whom I know not. It was worthless and empty. My wife remembers that Mrs. Davison gave her a manuscript to read during her stay with us, and that she read a part of it and returned it to Mrs. Davison, who told her it was written by Mr. Spaulding as a pastime to while away the days of sickness.
66 GEORGE CLARK."
LETTER NO. 2. "SONOMA, CAL., Jan. 24th, 1881.
MRS. E. E. DICKINSON. "DEAR MADAM : My wife does not remember the words 'Mormon, Maroni,' etc., nor anything else of the contents of the Spaulding manuscript in question. She remembers perfectly that it looked soiled and worn on the outside. She thought it dry reading, and, after reading a few pages, laid it aside. She remembers perfectly, too, what Mrs. Davison said about it as being the origin of the Mormon Bible, and she thought it would die out in a few years.
It was in 1831 Mrs. Davison left our house for Munson, Massachusetts.
(My interview with Hurlburt is too long to be inserted here. The gist of it is that he admitted before Mr. Kellogg and myself that he obtained a manuscript at Hartwick, Otsego County, New York, through an order from Mrs. Davison, in 1834, which he believes was written by Solomon Spaulding, that it was called " Manuscript Found," etc., that he peeped into it and saw the words Mormon, Maroni, Nephi, Lamenite, etc.)
What is the fair conclusion from these new facts? Is it not that Hurlburt got the original " Manuscript Found" in 1834? It has probably disappeared. It was obviously of value to the Mormons. They have probably had it in their control, and the fate of it will never be known.
That this "Manuscript Found" was the basis of
the "Book of Mormon" still further appears from the following statements, never before published:
"CONNEAUT, ASHTABULA COUNTY, OHIO, "December 23d, 1880.
"I have resided in the neighborhood of Conneaut, Ashtabula County, Ohio, sixty-six years. During all that period I have known Hiram Lake, whose statement [given below], dated Dec. 23d, 1880, I have read. This statement I believe to be true. I was acquainted with Henry Lake, Aaron Wright, John N. Miller, and Nathan Howard, the persons named in Hiram Lake's statement, and about 1834-5, the time of the excitement concerning Mormonism, I heard them all say that the Book of Mormon was undoubtedly taken from a manuscript written by Solomon Spaulding, which they had heard Spaulding read in 1811 or 1812, called the Manuscript Found, or the Lost Tribes." "LORIN GOULD."
"CONNEAUT, ASHTABULA COUNTY, OHIO, "Dec. 23d, 1880.
"I am sixty-nine years of age, and have lived all my life in Conneaut, Ashtabula County, Ohio. My father, Henry Lake, was partner with Solomon Spaulding in 1811 and '12, in a forge in Conneaut (then Salem). About 1834, when I was about twentythree years of age, I remember that there was a great excitement concerning Mormonism in Conneaut. My father read the Book of Mormon, or heard it read, and was familiar with its contents, and he told me it was unquestionably derived from a manuscript written by his former partner, Solomon Spaulding, called Manuscript Found, or the Lost Tribes.' I believe my father, about this time, made an affidavit to the same effect, which was published. Since 1834, I have conversed with Aaron Wright, John N. Miller, and Nathan Howard, old residents here, now deceased, all of whom lived here in 1811 and '12, and who had heard Spaulding's manuscript read, and they told me they believed the Book of Mormon was derived from Spaulding's Manuscript Found.' Some or all these persons made affidavits to this effect, which were published in a book called 'Mormonism Unveiled,' edited by. E. D. Howe, of Painesville, Ohio.
These two gentlemen are highly respected residents of Conneaut, where the writer saw them in November last. E. D. Howe, above referred to, in conversation with me at Painesville, Ohio (the same month), gave it as his opinion that the Book of Mormon was derived from Spaulding's manuscript, and that this manuscript was of too much value to the Mormons, when it was in their possession, to allow it to escape them. The theory he advanced was that Hurlburt got the real Spaulding manuscript, but what disposition he made of it has not been told, and that the one given by Hurlburt to him was something else.
It may be interesting to state that on my trip to Ohio, I called on General Garfield at Mentor, and conversed with him on this subject. I found that he was much interested in Mormonism. The first Mormon settlement was at Mentor, which is only three miles from Kirtland, where the first Mormon temple was built, a structure which is still in tolerable preservation. President Garfield's farm at Men
tor was purchased from a Mormon. Mrs. Garfield told me that her father studied Latin and Greek with Sidney Rigdon; that she and her husband remember to have heard Rigdon preach. She also said that her father told her that Rigdon, in his youth, lived in that neighborhood, and made mysterious journeys to Pittsburgh. From my conversation with General and Mrs. Garfield, I gathered that they believed that Rigdon was the prime author of the Book of Mormon, and that Joe Smith was merely his tool in that matter.
From a statement made by John Spaulding, the brother of Solomon Spaulding, printed in a memorial or genealogy of the Spaulding family, I have learned that he (John Spaulding) believed that Rigdon, then a printer, when a very young man, was familiar with the contents of "Manuscript Found," as he resided in the neighborhood of Conneaut, and is said to have been familiar with Mr. Spaulding's | writings, and that he secretly followed him to Pittsburgh, worked at his trade with Patterson, and suggested to his employer to borrow the curious romance written by Mr. Spaulding, with the possible idea of publishing it. Many facts seem to confirm this statement.
During my recent visit at Conneaut, the locality of the earth-mound which so fired Solomon Spaulding's imagination was pointed out to me, as well as the site of his foundry and dwelling-house. Last year some curious evidences of a prehistoric civilization, such as personal ornaments, cooking utensils, fragments of pottery, etc., were found near the old mound, and a number of families of the vicinity possess souvenirs of this kind.
ELLEN E. DICKINSON.
"Advertising Patent Medicines": A Reply. BUFFALO, N. Y.
TO THE EDITOR OF SCRIBNER'S MONTHLY.
SIR: The discussion of the business of advertising patent medicines, in the June number of SCRIBNER, is incomplete, in that no account is taken of the position of the medical profession.
The argument is mainly based on the assumption that the people are necessarily the judges, both of doctors and medicines,-which, it seems to me, is not true. This is to confound patronage with criticism. This, notwithstanding the disclaimer, is advising every man to be his own doctor; and to be his own lawyer, if the principle is extended. But the assumption is a fallacy. It is no more true of medicine than of any, other art or science. The value of a judge's opinion is measured by his knowledge. The merit of a painting, or a statue, is determined by the canons of art, as applied by painters, sculptors, and connoisseurs. But that the meretricious in art may acquire a certain reputation and success with the people, we know and deplore. The standing of a lawyer is fixed at the bar by his brother lawyers and judges, and not by the jury, or the applauding auditory. Broadly stated, the people do not judge between the facts of astronomy and chemistry, and the myths of astronomy and alchemy.
Nor is it true that "medicine is all empirical," in
the sense that it is applied without science by its practitioners. The practice of rational medicine demands a knowledge of the sciences of anatomy, physiology, chemistry, and physics. That "there is no authority whose prerogative it is to say to the public, that this or that man, or this or that system, is the best," is now true enough. So much the worse for the public! But that is a proper function of the State, and the time is coming when the State will assume the care of the public health. When we shall have left the age of barbarism a little farther behind, the State will be clothed with the power to establish the standard of qualifications of physicians, and to forbid the sale of secret, and therefore dangerous, nostrums. Then "we may know what are frauds and what are not." Until then we must get along with the relics of barbarism as best we may.
Is there no such thing as medical authority? Then is there no such thing as rational medicine; and it were better to throw all physic into the sea, and thus save mankind, at the expense of the fishes. For it is one duty of the physician to prevent the people from taking medicine, whether patented or not. But, it is said, the people judge by results. Again, judgment without knowledge. One falls sick and dies in the hands of a wise and skillful physician. Another, attacked by the same disease, takes a nostrum and gets well. The people, judging by results, enrich the quack and let the physician starve. And, while he suffers, he may know that no art or skill could save the one, and only violence could kill the other. The evidence that makes and sustains the reputation of patent medicines, if genuine, is worthless, for the reason that it is not evidence at all for those compe tent to determine the value of such testimony. It is also ex parte. The other side has not been heard. What nostrum vender ever "advertised" the nameless thousands who have swallowed his mixtures and who have died and made no sign? These never swell the figures in the almanacs and religious newspapers. They do not appear against the repu tation of a patented medicine. Not so with the physician, who, too often, buries his reputation with his patients.
One who uses a patent medicine assumes to determine the nature of his disease and its remedy-that is to say, he attempts to be his own physician. His action is more irrational than if he offered to be the physician of others—but it is more tolerable.
Any secret remedy that has potency is potent for evil in unskillful hands, and one that has no potency is a deception. In either case its use is therefore to be discouraged, as injurious to the public health and morals. That certain nostrums may be innocuous, or even salutary, who shall say? Seeing that their composition is unknown, their quality uncertain, and their effects undetermined, they do not furnish the neces sary conditions for a just estimate of their powers.
The manufacture and sale of these articles in this country have attained enormous proportions, and are increasing. It is time that sensible and intelligent people should recognize the fact that this business is in every way, excepting the way of trade, an evil thing. H. S. K.
"Music in American Public Schools": A Reply. LONDON, August 2, 1881. TO THE EDITOR OF SCRIBNER'S MONTHLY.
SIR: The reference to a remark of my father's, made by Mr. H. E. Holt in your August number, needs a word of explanation. The statement is correct, but the inference is wrong. My father often said that, if music had been taught in England upon more natural principles, the success of the Tonic Sol-fa system would have been smaller. No doubt, also, as Mr. Holt reports, he may have said that had Dr. Lowell Mason's Pestalozzian system been at hand, he would not himself have been driven upon the course of inquiry which resulted in his promulgation of the Tonic Sol-fa system. But my
father never meant it to be inferred that he considered Dr. Mason's method superior, or even equal, to the Tonic Sol-fa. The experience of our best teachers more and more proves the need of our letter notation in the early steps of the pupil, and its invaluable help in enlightening musical study. There is not the slightest need for any scare about "doing away with the old notation of music." Threequarters of our pupils pass on to that notation; and, after twenty-five years' experience, we find we are making more readers of that notation than all other musical systems put together.
Yours respectfully, J. SPENCER CURWEN. (Associate of the Royal Academy of Music; President of the Tonic Sol-fa College.)
HOME AND SOCIETY.
Books on the Training of Children.
MANY a young mother finds herself the guardian of a precious little life, utterly ignorant of the best methods of caring for it. What does she do? What would she do if she wished to become an accomplished artist or linguist? Does she set about becoming proficient in motherhood as she would in music, or in French? Does she not rather trust to her instincts to guide her in the matter, looking to relatives or friends for advice?
The root of the evil is to be found, of course, in the fact that nothing has been done in the previous life of the mother to prepare her for the duties that now devolve upon her.
"Is it not an astonishing fact," says Herbert Spencer, in his "Education: Intellectual, Moral, and Physical," "that though on the treatment of offspring depend their lives or deaths, and their moral welfare or ruin, yet not one word of instruction on the treatment of offspring is ever given to those who will hereafter be parents? Is it not monstrous that the fate of a new generation should be left to the chances of unreasoning custom, impulse, fancy-joined with the suggestions of ignorant nurses and the prejudiced counsel of grandmothers? If, before studying anatomy, a man set up as a surgical operator, we should wonder at his audacity and pity his patients. But that parents should begin the difficult task of rearing children without ever having given a thought to the principles-physical, moral, or intellectual-which ought to guide them, excites neither surprise at the actors nor pity for their victims."
There must be somewhere a remedy for this evil. Where can the mother go for help in her difficulties? -for hers they principally are at the beginning, though fathers have much more responsibility, even in this matter, than is generally assumed.
Any mother who will enter upon her duties in this spirit-the same spirit with which she would enter upon her duties as a student of art, or philos
ophy, or anything of the kind, will be amazed to find how many helps there are for her, how many most excellent works there are on this subject whose teachings will be of incalculable assistance to her, if properly studied and properly applied.
Herbert Spencer's work (from which I have quoted), "Education: Intellectual, Moral, and Physical," is published in pamphlet form by D. Appleton & Co., and can be had for fifty cents. It is a book that should be owned and well read by every father and mother capable of understanding it, and, indeed, by every one who has the responsibility of the training of children. More detailed works on the subject are "Physical Training of Children," by P. H. Chavasse, a well-known English physician; "The Training of Children," by James C. Jackson, M. D., of Dansville, N. Y.; "The Mother's Hygienic Hand-book,” by R. T. Trall, M. D., and "The Management of Children in Sickness and in Health," by A. M. Hale, M. D., Philadelphia. Of books of rather a different order are "The Child," by M. H. Kriege, published by Steiger, of New York, and " Aids to Family Government; or, From the Cradle to the School" (Holbrook & Co., New York), a book most highly recommended by Miss Elizabeth Peabody. Of a different order still are Abbot's books, The Mother at Home" and Gentle Measures in the Management of the Young"; and "Principles of Education," by Sewell (D. Appleton & Co.),—all containing most valuable information. "What is Play? Its Bearing upon Education and Training," by John Strachan, M. D. (of Edinburgh, I think), is a most interesting little book, most ably written. "How I Managed my Children from Infancy to Marriage," an English book by Mrs. Warren, is also one that should not be omitted in a list of this kind. Besides these, there are several books that may not seem at first to belong with those I have mentioned, but which surely ought to be read by every woman in the land, and particularly by those who have the care of the "little women" of our time,
namely, books on woman's dress. For surely the unhygienic, unphysiological way in which woman's body has been clothed has gone very far toward making her the delicate creature, or the suffering creature, she so generally is. Several excellent works on this subject have been written, but it will be sufficient to mention "Dress Reform," by Abby G. Woolson (Roberts Brothers, Boston), and " Dress, Health, Beauty," published by Ward, Lock & Co., London.
The books I have named do not, by any means, exhaust the list of those on this most important subject, but these will, I think, be enough for the purpose. MARGARET A. LAKE.
WHO nowadays writes letters? We all dash off hasty notes, or hurriedly scribble a postal-card, under pressure of immediate necessity, but the "epistolary art," so dear to our grandmothers, is becoming extinct.
It is not long since postage was so high that letters were a luxury, rather than the necessity that they are now. The arrival of one was looked upon as a great event, and to destroy one was little short of sacrilege. It was worth while to spend some time and pains on a letter which would be read and reread, and perhaps handed down for the benefit of posterity.
The disjointed productions that pass for letters in these degenerate modern days would have shocked an educated girl of the last century. There is no reason why girls who can speak French and German should not be able to write English. Many young ladies who have had a smattering of recondite science, and have dipped into the grammars of one or more of the ancient and half a dozen of the modern languages, are still unable to write a letter in their own tongue, that in arrangement and choice of words might not disgrace a properly taught child of twelve. Especially, the distinction between the third and first person is often so hazy that a formal note begun in one is finished in the other!
A good correspondent begins her letter by writing her address and the full date plainly at the top of the page. Letters are so often referred to as evidence in trifling or important matters that this is worth
remembering. If they should happen to be kept for any length of time, the date would add materially to their interest.
Many persons seem to think it is an insult to the intelligence of their friends to write straightforward from page to page in the natural manner, and that the more their letters resemble a puzzle the more piquantly interesting they will be. It is hard to tell why a sentence commenced at the bottom of one page should not be continued at the top of the next, instead of rushing wildly off at a tangent, and being found at last written crosswise, in the very last place a person would look for it.
The girl who really answers a letter is no common correspondent. We have all groaned with mild exasperation over a letter supposed to be a reply to one of our own, but which took not the smallest notice| of our modest communication, even in a cursory mention of its arrival, left all our questions unanswered, and, with curious ingenuity, omitted every scrap of information on the subjects that most interested us.
The best time to answer a letter, when it is possible, is immediately after first reading it. So many things rush into one's mind that cannot be recalled afterward. Very few people have the requisite leisure to do this, as, in ordinary cases, it involves a rather brisk correspondence; but it should not be put off longer than necessary.
In keeping up a regular correspondence with friends at a distance, it is a good plan to jot down at night little pieces of news, or anything of interest that has occurred during the day. This journal can be used in writing the letter; nothing will be forgotten, and there will be less danger of repetition.
People who are traveling abroad are very apt to make their home letters too much like guide-books. Descriptions of scenery and famous places are generally tedious. It is the little things that are entertaining; a droll adventure, a peculiarity in dress or speech, anything which especially strikes the writer, will be certain to be given vividly, and will add color and interest to her letter.
The full name should be signed, so that should the letter miscarry, it may be returned through the Dead-Letter Office, which would be impossible if the only clew were "Lulu " or "Katie." E. R. SCOVIL
CULTURE AND PROGRESS.
Letters of Madame de Rémusat.*
THE feeling of uncertainty which every reader who keeps his eyes open must have experienced while examining the memoirs of Madame de Rémusat, follows him in the selection of letters written by that charming and clever lady which has been made by
*A Selection from the Letters of Madame de Rémusat to her Husband and Son. From 1804 to 1813. From the French by Mrs. Cashel Hoey and Mr. John Lillie. New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1881.
her grandson, Senator Paul de Rémusat. If there are fewer passages that seem to bear the trace of the Senator's own finger, there always remains the question of taste and discretion involved in the suppression of letters that are in his judgment inadvisable to print. He tells us that letters full of repetitions, necessitated by the bad postal arrangements of the day, and the insecurity of letters from the visits of the police, have been omitted; also those relating to the writer's numerous bodily ailments. The translators have thought best to expurgate further, by selecting