We've been doing some organizing of sources for the funeral sermons given by Joseph Smith. Naturally the most time-consuming effort will involve the King Follett Sermon, designated as text KFD2. The purpose of this work is to try to recover the original texts of Joseph Smith's funeral discourses, to the degree that such a recovery is possible (it really isn't, but the impossible never stopped me). The texts are important in part because these speaking events often served as platforms for Joseph Smith to disseminate foundational doctrinal themes. The transmission of the texts (editing history) will be discussed as well as the publication process over the years. There will be source criticism as well as text criticism. In another life, I actually knew about this sort of thing.Progress:
January 21, 2008.
KFD2 has reached several milestones, with a completely new recovery of source texts and a collation of sources and major published editions up through 1845 (it seems no published source texts for KFD2 have been free of transcription errors). For reasons that will be apparent when the texts become available, it is reasonable to bifurcate the critical discussion of KFD2 around two base texts, the Bullock 1844 amalgamation and the Grimshaw 1855 amalgamation. The deconstruction of the two texts has led to some interesting discoveries regarding the methods used by the editors and in some cases suggests motives for certain editorial expansions or changes. The critical apparatus is somewhat different than is usual for such discussions, partly because the archetypal text is an oral one. In addition to a novel critical apparatus, a more standard sort of critical form is planned. KFD2 has been divided up into 35 working "pages" (sections, if you will, each "page" actually consists of a number real pages itself). The thing is becoming rather large. I've tried to take a look at the cultural presence around Joseph, but it would be impossible to go beyond a beginning stage here. As usual, I hope it will be a good research tool, and perhaps settle some questions, and raise others.A number of reconstructions of KFD2 have been done. The original plan was not to add another one, but folks keep asking about it. So after some consideration I've decided that we'll add another layer of work onto this and do another reconstruction. Hopefully, it will be a useful and open reference. Right now I'm involved in doing some of the very tedious checking. In the end, we may produce two reconstructions, a minimal and maximal one. I'll try to explain that when I get time to work out some of the details. This probably means that I'll be forced to do such reconstructions on all the funeral sermons.
Even though the texts are relatively short, the process has proved to be more complex and time-consuming than I initially thought.
One problem is getting a good software package to do what I want. I may have to write something myself.March 25, 2008. I'm getting close to finishing KFD2 in terms of checking the initial critical apparatus. While doing this, I've had a baptism by fire in documentary editing, especially for an old mathematician. It's been an education. I thought I knew the basics already. The next step is to run through punctuation, then re-check annotation. One of the temptations I've struggled with is over-annotating. It will be bristling with notes as it is. I've been trying to follow ADE/MLA guidelines, fortunately Mary-Jo Kline's book is a life saver. I have decided to do part of the critical study in two tracks since, as already mentioned there were two distinct early (printed) texts. I have also started looking at KFD1. I also wrote some more on the introductory essay. It will be soothingly short. Each sermon will have its own short introduction regarding the sources, etc. Editing 19th century sermon notes is nearly a specialty unto itself it seems. But we could be breaking some new ground (rules?) here.
April 7, 2008. Part of the comparative (source critical) apparatus for KFD2 is more or less finished, with about half of the sources checked. One typographical facsimile is finished, along with a "reverse" facsimile for that text (difficult to explain at this point). After reviewing the available software, I eventually decided to use LaTeX to do the facsimiles. There are so many packages available that it was just a matter of putting the right ones together. For the comparative apparatus, which is a new system, at least for me, I ended up using MS Word since it provided the greatest functionality with the most convenient interface. It's not perfect (no pun intended), since it fails to allow some representations, but it does a fine job making the editorial processes that KFD2 initially underwent, transparent.
April 28, 2008. There are 7 KFD2-related texts now, but the thing just keeps expanding. The most daunting things for KFD2 are yet to be done. There is some really fun stuff for the careful student. I've stopped looking at the other sermons for the present. There is just too much involved with King Follett. The critical text for the Times and Seasons recension is more or less done, but needs several more proofings. I've finished typographical facsimiles for nearly all the manuscripts involved. The reverse engineering (source critical stuff) of the amalgamations is more or less done with most of the annotation finished, I think. The biographical information on the people involved is rather interesting. I've done something with the GM2 critical text (this is the "approved" KFD version appearing in the ms history of the Church) with textual work on the first Deseret News printing about half done. By far, the most detail work is found in editing GM2. There is a famous joke about documentary editing that appeared in the Spectator. I'll try and find it and put it up here, since it illustrates some of the angst I've had over some of this. But the sermons are important enough that I think the details, however trivial they may seem, are important. [I found it in Thorpe's book. The quote is from Joseph Addison:
Indeed, when a different Reading gives us a different Sense,
or a new Elegance in an Author, the Editor does very well in
taking Notice of it; but when he only entertains us with the
several ways of Spelling the same Word, and gathers together
the various Blunders and Mistakes of twenty or thirty different
Transcribers, they only take up the Time of the learned
Reader, and puzzle the Minds of the Ignorant]May 6, 2008. Just a small update. I've been trying to figure out what kind of a sample to put up as a preview. Tomorrow I'll be in Salt Lake at the historical dept. doing some proof reading mostly. I'm behind on the Woodruff journal materials.
May 7, 2008. Well, shockeroo. You now have to get permission to look at the Woodruff journals. You can read the typescript (doesn't help me). But no soap on even the film. So, a day wasted. I long for the 1970s again! Of course the technology was stone knives and forks comparatively. I remember using a manual typewriter there that was 30 years old even then (and I think the ribbon came from that era too)! Hopefully, permission comes through soon and I can proceed. I should say in defense of the archives that it was staff meeting time and so the senior missionaries were running things and they were just following procedure.
The tentative title for the book is "The Funeral Sermons of Joseph Smith, a Critical Edition." Sounds a bit formal, but it's descriptive.
May 16. After sitting for seven hours with the Wilford Woodruff journals, I once again appreciated his excellent handwriting compared to some of the other (admittedly hurried) scribblings I've been pouring over. His account of KFD2 is clearly smoothed by interpolation between archetypal quotations, but he did a reasonable job of it. He missed some things of course, but he does a good job conveying the gist of what was said. But he makes one wish for time machines. You want to go back and witness things for yourself. With a good recording device. Hmm. Seven hours for eight journal pages. The brain is a wonderful thing, but it is the enemy of anyone producing a facsimile. It wants to see those middle letters and other things that aren't really there sometimes.
June 4. It was a nice break: three weeks reviewing the literature on the evolution of textual criticism, and hunting for certain artifacts that played a role in the sermons.
July 1. I have made some progress on the 19th century textual history and criticism of KFD2. I've got to make another run at the Woodruff materials, hopefully tomorrow. But basically the first pass at the critical text of the manuscript history version of KFD2 is now done. The 20th century is underway too, the text underwent a more controlled series of changes there and so I have done something different there. I have also exploited some interesting capabilities of LaTeX here which may be useful to the researcher. The first half of the 20th century is interesting in terms of it's impact on the printing history and widely differing opinions on KFD2 among Church leaders. A few of the 19th century editorialisms may have contributed to misapprehensions about the sermon. Moreover, the 19th century imprints in some respects controlled the text in the 20th century, rather than the manuscripts. This led to a somewhat remarkable (text critical) difference among the imprint traditions in the 20th century.
Contact us if you have suggestions, relevant information or questions, etc.
-WVS