Book of Mormon desecration

"John R. Yamamoto-Wilson" wrote in message
ups.com...

While we're on the topic, here's an interesting anecdote. For a couple
of years now I've been on the trail of a copy of a book by Isaac
Ambrose that was owned and annotated by John Bunyan. It was auctioned
in the 1920s and has gone to earth since then; its present whereabouts
are unknown.


An interesting case--uncited, e.g., in H.J. Jackson's MARGINALIA: READERS
WRITING IN BOOKS (Yale U. Pr., 2001). (Of course, who believed Bunyan's
claim anyway?)

Any scholarly references for further reading?


William M. Klimon
http://www.gateofbliss.com

Al, it bothers me, but the fact is it's HER book. She can do whatever
she wants with it. If I were rich enough to do such things, I'd try
and make her an offer that insured that the book would stay intact,
but I ain't, and it's of little use to weep over a book I'll never see
and could never own anyhow.

It doesn't mean that I agree with what she did, but this sort of thing
happens all the time with illustrated plates and maps. Past a certain
point I have to worry about my own books, and those I might possibly
acquire in the future.

(Of course, who believed Bunyan's claim anyway?)

I believe it was Doctor Johnson who first voiced doubts, but perhaps
there were sceptics even earlier than that.
Any scholarly references for further reading?

Well, the classic work on the subject, that covers the ground very
fully and has never really been superseded, is William York Tindall,
John Bunyan: Mechanick Preacher (1934; reissued in 1964). Bunyan's
reputation has never fully recovered from Tindall's hostile portrayal
of him as a plagiarising fraud.

John
http://rarebooksinjapan.com

Bill Klimon wrote:

(Of course, who believed Bunyan's claim anyway?)

I believe it was Doctor Johnson who first voiced doubts, but perhaps
there were sceptics even earlier than that.

Any scholarly references for further reading?

Well, the classic work on the subject, that covers the ground very
fully and has never really been superseded, is William York Tindall,
John Bunyan: Mechanick Preacher (1934; reissued in 1964). Bunyan's
reputation has never fully recovered from Tindall's hostile portrayal
of him as a plagiarising fraud.

John
http://rarebooksinjapan.com

John A. Stovall notes:
No, I'm an being an Anarchist.

No, you are being an asswipe (as usual).
Have a nice day

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 07:43:41 -0700, "Clark Smith"
wrote:

No, because the book of mormon (fairy tales) deserves to be desecrated.

Would you take the same attitude to a Grimm first edition ? 8-)


On aesthetic grounds, is there anything special about this book? I'm
sure there have been some incredibly well produced editions of Mormon in
later years, but is there anything special about this first ?

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 18:52:22 -0400, "William M. Klimon"
wrote:

I hope they preserve them or use them in some significant
way (e.g. displaying disbound Audubon prints for ornithological study),

I have little problem with "breaking" a copy of Audubon to allow the
prints to be displayed simultaneously. Bindings aren't books - we often
do terrible things to a binding to preserve the text block itself.

What worries me is breaking up the _collection_ of pages. A set of loose
pages can be rebound, a dispersed collection can't.

Is anybody else outraged at this?

No, because the book of mormon (fairy tales) deserves to be desecrated.

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 08:06:08 -0500, John A. Stovall
wrote:

Any First is special...

Even Jeffrey Archer ? This whole "Firsts are special" is something
I've never really understood about book collecting.

John R. Yamamoto-Wilson (aka hypocrisy in japan) wrote:

self serving blather eliminated

Now Yammy, be a good boy or I'll send big bad John Pelan over there to
beat the **** out of you!