Holmes manuscript
Holmes manuscript
I am curious why so many people seem to hold Glovers "Holmes manuscript" in such high esteem, when it is contradicted by actual facts we all know. Jacob Waltz seemed to exceptionally succinct and rather longwinded for someone in his condition. He seems to have forgotten he was a naturalized citizen and misplaced his long association with Weiss. It seems to me that Brownie Holmes really wanted to believe the story handed down to him. I do believe that Waltz may have given out information not knowing who he was speaking to. I just feel the relevant pieces concerning the last words of Jacob Waltz are to a large degree fabrication and that the actual words spoken were principally the clues that no one will ever know. Perhaps even still Waltz decided to fabricate what he did say. There is very little in my opinion that substantiates that particular work. I am curious how those who support the work are able to work around the facts we know today. As always with the Dutchman legend though there is a tendency not to let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Holmes Manuscript
Many questions are posed about the Holmes Manuscript and it validity. I would like to throw out some comments about it.
If one looks at Glover's comments of the manuscript in his printing, he explains some things. These answer some of the questions posed. Some I agree with and some I do not. However, it is probably a given that Brownie was not repeating verbatim what Waltz said on his deathbed - and that was in two ways. One, Brownie was trying to make an interesting story. The kernels of truth are there - but for readability, I believe Brownie expanded the narative. I think the deathdbed conversation could have taken place in less than five mintues and conveyed all that is "between the lines" in Brownie's manuscript. Thus, Waltz - in his condition - could have told Holmes and Roberts more than we might think. Two, Brownie no doubt kept some things to himself and some he changed slightly. Why? So, that he could do as Glover implied. Give out enough information to get someone interested (to get a backer) and then he would supply this missing info to put it all together.
History tends to support the notion that the LDM story was a simple one. Thus, the Holmes Manuscript is as close as we are going to get to that bare bones tale. It is certainly more accurate than the Ely-Thomas version.
I believe this goes back to the concept of the two "camps" - the Thomas-Petrasch followers and the Holmes followers. I have to say, when it is all said and done - based on everything I know - I have to be in the Holmes camp.
Regarding Weiss: I will grant at one time the man may have been associated with Waltz in Prescott. But there is no evidence of any kind he had anything to do with Waltz in Phoenix or with the LDM. I may be wrong. But, I do not think there is. I think there is more "evidence" to support the notion Peter Backens was Waltz's nephew and possible partner with the LDM (for a short time) than that J.C. Weiss was involved. But, that is just my opinion. We will never know anything for sure.
If one looks at Glover's comments of the manuscript in his printing, he explains some things. These answer some of the questions posed. Some I agree with and some I do not. However, it is probably a given that Brownie was not repeating verbatim what Waltz said on his deathbed - and that was in two ways. One, Brownie was trying to make an interesting story. The kernels of truth are there - but for readability, I believe Brownie expanded the narative. I think the deathdbed conversation could have taken place in less than five mintues and conveyed all that is "between the lines" in Brownie's manuscript. Thus, Waltz - in his condition - could have told Holmes and Roberts more than we might think. Two, Brownie no doubt kept some things to himself and some he changed slightly. Why? So, that he could do as Glover implied. Give out enough information to get someone interested (to get a backer) and then he would supply this missing info to put it all together.
History tends to support the notion that the LDM story was a simple one. Thus, the Holmes Manuscript is as close as we are going to get to that bare bones tale. It is certainly more accurate than the Ely-Thomas version.
I believe this goes back to the concept of the two "camps" - the Thomas-Petrasch followers and the Holmes followers. I have to say, when it is all said and done - based on everything I know - I have to be in the Holmes camp.
Regarding Weiss: I will grant at one time the man may have been associated with Waltz in Prescott. But there is no evidence of any kind he had anything to do with Waltz in Phoenix or with the LDM. I may be wrong. But, I do not think there is. I think there is more "evidence" to support the notion Peter Backens was Waltz's nephew and possible partner with the LDM (for a short time) than that J.C. Weiss was involved. But, that is just my opinion. We will never know anything for sure.
Last edited by S.C. on Thu Sep 26, 2002 9:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
I beleive that there was such a rivalry between the two camps (Holmes-Petrasch/Bark) and such ill-will that both parties naturally disparaged the information that the other had....refusing to think that the other had anything of value to add to the search.
What we need to do today is look at the info from both camps and see what fits. And beleive me, some clues are remarkably similar if one can sift through the chaff. The question for the researcher is a line from an old Bob Seger song called Against The Wind: .."what to leave out...what to leave in"
What we need to do today is look at the info from both camps and see what fits. And beleive me, some clues are remarkably similar if one can sift through the chaff. The question for the researcher is a line from an old Bob Seger song called Against The Wind: .."what to leave out...what to leave in"
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Holmes manuscript
Great topic guys! Hard to give any credence to the Holmes Manuscript, at least it is for me. since it is presented as fact by Glover, it places the information in his first book in question. Has anyone seen the various notes and manuscripts offered as sources for these stories? Have they been authinticated by independent professionals? Don't get me wrong, I liked Glovers book, especially where it dovetailed into my own area of interest. Isn't that how we all judge these new books? That also leads to my next posted question.
Well, to be honest, I dont recall Glover presenting the Holmes Manuscript as "fact". It seemed to me that he presented the case for the Holmes
Manuscript in an even-handed fashion..letting the reader decide what was worthy of study and what was not (too bad the latest edition to the LDM bibliography did not do the same...but enough of that..I promised certain people to be a good boy and hold my tongue..lol)
What sort of "independent professionals" are you suggesting authenticate
the notes and memoirs of the early pioneers?
Manuscript in an even-handed fashion..letting the reader decide what was worthy of study and what was not (too bad the latest edition to the LDM bibliography did not do the same...but enough of that..I promised certain people to be a good boy and hold my tongue..lol)
What sort of "independent professionals" are you suggesting authenticate
the notes and memoirs of the early pioneers?
Holmes manuscript
It does seem unusual though that Waltzs supposed nephew and the elusive Weiss were both in the prescott area with Waltz. Somehow both are essential parts of the storylines of two separate variations. It seems odd the cultural familiarity with the Thomas line should have been more a proper source. Unless Thomas covered the story by substituting Weiss a former partner, who could of been dead somewhile before, for the nephew.Holmes always seems to typify Waltz as a murderer, yet he is in agreement with most sources that Waltz while reclusive was cordial to Holmes himself. I wonder always if Waltz murdered another prospector or someone following him and the romantisized version is what we got. It also seems that someone would have noticed the Nephew missing after he had come. There is also the other idea in that after writing the manuscript, Holmes may have realized that the story was compromised and would draw more attention to his father and possibly cause himself grief in defending pertinant facts. Holmes may have known certain facts were wrong but was more concerned with his fathers reputation than the truth.
Does anyone know where the notion of a "nephew" started? My impression is that Weiss/Weiser and the Nephew have been used interchangably in the story. Sometimes he was a partner, sometimes a nephew. Then, suddenly, Corbin comes up with "Peter Backins", whoever the heck that is. Were there three of them out there at some time? Were Weiser and the nephew the same person? (Were the two ever seen together? Hmm...)