|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 349
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 11:48 am: | 
|
"Well , its obvious that the quote as it appears in the Diary is completely out of context in relation to the poem , isn't it ?
Which surely suggests that whoever saw the quote originally came across it out of context , such as in the Sphere book."
I agree with you insofar with respect to the poem almost certainly being quoted out of context. The quote contains 2 'errors' out of a total of 5 words, which is pretty impressive. To me, it argues for both being out of context as well as out of sight, i.e. quoted from memory.
"Surely James Maybrick is no longer a serious candidate for Jack the Ripper ?"
You wouldn't realize it for all the obfuscation here, but almost no one in Diary World believes Maybrick to be the Ripper. Some of us want to discuss when and how the document was hoaxed.
"The entire case for Maybrick being the Ripper rests on the Diary..."
Two words: The *&^%$! Watch.
OK, that was three.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 201
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 12:19 pm: |
|
I thought the scratches on the Watch had been proven to be modern , non ?
Oh well.
Its been a while... |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1385
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 12:20 pm: |
|
And since there is no evidence anywhere that anyone has ever offered that links the watch in any way even remotely to the real James Maybrick....
Well, you know the rest.
But I'm pleased to see Sir Robert mention the "from memory" idea, since I advanced it myself in detail here:
http://casebook.org/cgi-bin/forum/show.cgi?tpc=4922&post=127058#POST127058
Anyway, not much is happening. So I'm off to get lunch.
Happy on a warm and sunny Florida day,
--John
PS: Simon, we cross posted. But unfortunately the tests so far on the watch are self-admittedly incomplete and remain open to a multiplicity of possible interpretations (a quick read of the watch threads will demonstrate that nicely for you). Perhaps there'll be new, more thorough tests soon. Perhaps not.
(Message edited by omlor on April 20, 2005) |
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 202
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 12:30 pm: |
|
Surely the Watch doesn't prove that Maybrick was the Ripper anyway ? It might be seen as providing some support or confirmation for the Diary , but thats about it.
' James Maybrick I am Jack MN AC ES CE MK ' - this could have been written any time between 1889 and 1992.
All it would need would be a perfunctory knowledge of the case and a desire to implicate Maybrick as the killer.
Theres no evidence that Maybrick created those marks , and besides who would scratch their own name into their watch ? Far better to have it embossed with the initials of its owner ( eg JO ).
Even more damning is the fact that whoever scratched the marks wrote ' I am Jack ' - Maybrick wouldn't need to do that , he would know.
The marks are scratched to connect Maybrick with Jack with the victims. Its a fake. |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1386
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 12:41 pm: |
|
Hi Simon,
Yup.
And you wrote:
Far better to have it embossed with the initials of its owner ( eg JO ).
I will deny until my last days that I ever owned this watch.
--John |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 350
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 1:07 pm: |
|
"Surely the Watch doesn't prove that Maybrick was the Ripper anyway ?"
Agreed. I'm not trying to pick nits, but you stated that the entire case against Maybrick rested on the Diary. There is, unfortunately, more to contend with than just the Diary.
" besides who would scratch their own name into their watch "
There is, from time to time, comments made as to what the 'real' James Maybrick would have or would not have done. What I am saying should not be construed as lending support to any notion that these artifacts are real - but insofar as Maybrick was ingesting industrial sized quantities of euphoriants , I don't think we can say a blessed thing about what he would or would not have done.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1387
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 1:24 pm: |
|
Sir Robert writes:
"There is, from time to time, comments made as to what Mike Barrett would have or would not have done. What I am saying should not be construed as lending support to any notion that these artifacts are real - but insofar as Barrett was ingesting industrial sized quantities of euphoriants, I don't think we can say a blessed thing about what he would or would not have done."
Well, that's not quite what he wrote. But it's pretty close.
Hearing a familiar voice,
--John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1654
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 1:40 pm: |
|
Hi Jenni,
But nonetheless perhaps you could explain to me why Mike brought a copy of the book even though it was in the library. Did he like to just waste his money?
I assume you meant 'bought'?
What exactly do you mean? Mike's initial claim was that he found 'O costly...' in one of the copies of volume 2 available in the library. He then claimed to have remembered acquiring a copy of this very book back in 1989, while helping out with the Hillsborough disaster appeal, and said he was going to use it to claim he wrote the diary himself, because - as he argued - how else would he have known about 'O costly...' if not from his own copy?
He was smart enough to know how sweet this argument would sound (to this day) to the ears of all those waiting for him to spill the beans of a recent hoax. But when it came to it - just like in 1999 when he promised to produce the mythical auction receipt for the scrapbook - he blew it by not producing the goods.
Obviously the auction receipt would have been a one-off, so he couldn't have got himself one later to claim as the genuine article.
But Sphere books are not unique, so ironically, if Mike didn't hand over a knowingly forged diary to Doreen in 1992, he could still have handed over a 'forgery' to Alan Gray by December 1994 - ie a Sphere volume 2 that had never been a part of Mike's personal book collection.
I don't envy those whose faith is currently pinned on this book being genuine - ie genuinely in Mike's possession at the same time as the diary.
Love,
Caz
X |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1655
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 1:49 pm: |
|
Hi Simon,
Good to see you back. Will you be coming to Brighton?
Maybrick wouldn't need to do that , he would know.
So you're the one who believes Maybrick was Jack and knew it. 
Why do lovers carve their initials on trees? They don't need to do that, they know they are dating each other.
A non-argument I'm afraid.
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1388
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 1:52 pm: |
|
Once again, as I have already mentioned twice now, is it not the case that Alan Gray has Mike mentioning an evidentiary book to him at the end of August 1994 and even naming it as a Sphere book the first week of September?
I cited this on another thread and no one has yet explained why Alan would vouch for this or why Melvin was wrong about it.
For the exact wording and the consequences of this, please read here:
http://casebook.org/cgi-bin/forum/show.cgi?tpc=4922&post=127187#POST127187
Thanks,
--John (who need not pin his faith on anything Mike has ever said in order to know that the miracle never happened and that Mike lied as usual and that the old hoax theory cannot explain in any rational or believable way how Mike knew the source of this citation -- just like it can't explain lots of other things in this text) |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 351
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 1:54 pm: |
|
"just like in 1999 when he promised to produce the mythical auction receipt for the scrapbook - he blew it by not producing the goods."
Was this the same C&D meeting where Skinner had to prompt him twice about Crashaw ? Where you there by any chance, Caz ?
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1389
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 2:54 pm: |
|
Sir Robert,
It's funny you mention Mike needing to be prompted about things. I have a cassette tape that has an interview with Mike (by people who I suspect were there at that very meeting). In it, he has to be prompted two or three times to answer almost every question, and even then most of his answers are rambling, off-topic, paranoid, and sometimes simply incoherent. So I wouldn't be surprised at all that he'd have to be prompted in public as well.
But, what you said about the real James also goes for Mike -- insofar as he was ingesting industrial sized quantities of euphoriants, I don't think this can be interpreted as saying or even suggesting anything at all about what he might have known or not known at any given time.
Thanks for reminding me of the tape,
--John
(Message edited by omlor on April 20, 2005) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2136
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 6:48 am: |
|
Yes, I am supposed to be working (who's checking!)
Let's start here from the beginning a make a nice little list, (I do so like lists!)
Anyway, as I see it, in the infinite world of stuff, there are several possibilities of theoreticalness, (someone’s been reading too many sociology books!) here goes now,
#1 SAYING the diary is genuine (I said saying!! don't faint!) yes anyway saying that, then the quote 'O costly intercourse of death' (or OCIOD, if you will) how did that get in there?
well perchance James Maybrick wrote it in, with his pen, knowing about the said quote from somewhere (God knows where) and being a bit of an arsenic eating dope (in theory) got OCIOD without the letters being properly in the correct place, div!
Now all those years later, the guy who's name I forget, writes his Herbert article for Sphere, by pure chance (to use someone else’s phrase) he notes down that particular Crashaw line as being useful (well not chance really it's a damn good line well done Richard!), anyway, now,
Mike finds the quote in the library. This IS SO POSSIBLE!
and by some fluke Mike also has a copy of this book.
I think that covered everything there for the diary being genuine.
#2 SAYING the diary is an old hoax (I said saying!), then OCIOD, how did that get in there. Why this is a simple one, some fan of Crawshaw wrote it in from a book, easy, or else they equally remembered it wrong as above, easy, easy, easy.
Now a few years later, this guy (who's name I forget), writing his article for the Sphere Guide (on Herbert) uses this exact same line because it's such a damn good line! (Good old Mr Crawshaw). That is just the way of the world a coincidence of sorts (a POSSIBLE coincidence!)
Anyway now,
Mike finds the quote, in the book it's in, in the library it's in, bingo!!! MAGIC!
By some fluke Mike also has a copy of the book.
I think that covers the old hoax theory there.
Now moving on to the realms of fantasy (okay, yes I am joking)
#3 the diary is a MODERN forgery.
Behold the wonders of the modern hoax theory, things are about to get complex, (see I am the first to admit it)
The modern hoaxer chanced upon a quote about death in a volume of essays about literature. The same quote that is in the diary. They recalled that and transcribed it into the diary. SIMPLE AS!
Yes, but didn't I mention things getting complex, indeed I did,
Here goes,
There are several explanations for this occurring,
First that the modern hoaxer obtained the Sphere book from the library to gain the quote.
A few years later Mike happened across it finding it by looking where it was!
Mike owned a copy of this book (by pure fluke)
Ok, or Mike got the quote from his Sphere book he owned. Lucky for him, the book was also in Liverpool library where he was able to make up story of miracle (not a miracle but still some people won’t believe it to be possible!).
OK, or Mike got it from the library and didn’t own the book he didn’t fake the diary. He talks a lot of nonsense (in theory only, I am not saying he does or does not talk a lot of nonsense).
Now, in anticipation of what you will say to all this,
#1 Caz, I am sorry for any grammar or spelling mistakes!
#2 Yes John, what is the only explanation that can explain how it got there simply and logically.
#3 you don't know that he lied.
#4 Caz, I am not saying when he owned the book, just that he did and it was by pure fluke.
#5 no, that's right, not really useful for determine the age at all.
Cheers
Jenni
"All you need is positivity"
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 590
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 12:25 pm: |
|
From the dusty vaults of yesteryear:
"Incidently, unlike the 7-volume Pelican Guide to English Literature, the Sphere History of Literature did not achieve wide circulation. It is no easy to find. It took me eight years of looking for it in second-hand book shops and book fairs, before I finally found a copy of Volume 2 three months ago." --Robert Smith, Casebook Message Boards, 8 May, 2001
And yet, it is argued above that Barrett popped out one afternoon and found not only the correct volume, but one that coincidentally had the correct binding defect. I congratulate those who are doing such an excellent job of demonstrating Barrett's skills and cunning.
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1395
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 1:48 pm: |
|
Hi Jenni,
We both know what the simple and common sense explanation is for how someone is able to identify the source of a completely unnamed five word passage that they gave to someone else in a book.
Mike gave Shirley the five words.
Shirley asked Mike the source of the five words.
Mike produced the source.
Mike was the person who showed everyone the diary with the unidentified five words in it.
Mike was the person who showed everyone the modern book with the same five words in it.
Mike's best attempt to explain how he did that was to tell an incredible and miraculous tale that runs counter to all pre-computer library experience and to every attempt to reproduce the event.
Mike is a known and compulsive liar.
There is no evidence anywhere of any sort to support the library miracle story.
Those who have faith in Mike's story can choose to do so. But such a choice has been repeatedly demonstrated to be a foolhardy one at best and a naive and stupid one at worst.
I prefer logic and common sense.
Thanks for the thoughts. And thanks RJ, for that gem of a citation.
All the best,
--John
PS: Jenni mentions the idea that "The modern hoaxer chanced upon a quote about death in a volume of essays about literature."
Not just death. Sex, too. Or at least that's what it seems like when you only get four short lines and when you see the word "intercourse" and think like Beavis and Butthead. Oh, and who gave us both the diary with the quote in it and the modern book with the quote in it? |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2157
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 5:28 pm: |
|
werent they lucky it was in the sphere guide?
"All you need is positivity"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1398
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 5:32 pm: |
|
Jenni,
Not really. 'Cause it's the other way around.
Smiling at you and thinking of the title of a Michel Foucault book,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2160
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 4:09 am: |
|
John,
i prefer never to think of michael Foucault if at all possible.
Now, listen, watch what you are arguing, I am saying wasn't it lucky there was a quote about death and sex in the book in the library (or indeed in the house) when the hoaxer hoaxed the diary.
Jenni
ps 'Fearless speech'
'Madness and civilization : a history of insanity in the Age of Reason'
'The order of things : an archaeology of the human sciences '
'Ethics : subjectivity and truth '
"All you need is positivity"
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2163
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 4:52 am: |
|
the order of things, was the one, right?
"All you need is positivity"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1402
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 6:34 am: |
|
Yup, that was the one.
I'm just saying that everyone should remember which book appeared in public first.
But I get your point, and I agree.
All the best,
--John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1661
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 7:14 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
Caz, I am not saying when he owned the book, just that he did and it was by pure fluke.
Not pure fluke if he only obtained it after September 1994. You still have to have faith in one of Mike's claims to believe he owned the book before that time.
Hi RJ,
Not, it is not argued anywhere that 'Barrett popped out one afternoon and found not only the correct volume, but one that coincidentally had the correct binding defect'.
He told Shirley and Sally in late 1994 or early 1995 that he had found volume 2 in a second hand bookshop, and pointed the shop out to them. The proprietor was unable to confirm having sold one when the ladies later went in and made enquiries.
But when we interviewed Mike for Ripper Diary, we were asking him about something else and he misunderstood the question and said that it took him six or seven weeks to find the book - and that he picked it up in Mount Pleasant. There is indeed a second hand bookshop in Mount Pleasant, so we have two similar claims made several years apart, and based on a real shop.
You are free not to believe this one of course (and I'm not claiming to know whether it's true or not), yet you choose to believe Mike's claim about obtaining the diary ink from the Bluecoat shop, despite Diamine chemist Alec Voller's clear statement that the diary ink is not Diamine.
The binding 'defect' (that wasn't) is covered in Ripper Diary, as is Mike's first mention of "O sweet [sic] intercourse" to Alan Gray. All copies of volume two tend to open at certain pages, one of which is the page containing 'O costly...'. The one handed to Gray was no exception. It was no coincidental one-off binding defect, but a natural effect of the manufacturing process.
So much misinformation, so little time to address and correct it all.
I would have thought that if the modern hoax believers had such a watertight case, they wouldn't need to introduce or repeat arguments based on erroneous information.
But it seems they just can't let go of it.
Love,
Caz
X |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2173
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 7:24 am: |
|
Hey there Caz,
OK, whatever enough about the book. IT DOESN'T MATTER if Mike owned a copy THERE WAS A COPY IN HIS LIBRARY. Is that simple enough?
'The binding 'defect' (that wasn't) is covered in Ripper Diary, as is Mike's first mention of "O sweet [sic] intercourse" to Alan Gray. All copies of volume two tend to open at certain pages, one of which is the page containing 'O costly...'. The one handed to Gray was no exception. It was no coincidental one-off binding defect, but a natural effect of the manufacturing process.'
how odd since the copy in warwick university library doesnt open at that page.
How very odd..
Now I'm not saying that therefore the copy youve seen which opens at the right page doesnt ...
I would have thought that if the modern hoax believers had such a watertight case, they wouldn't need to introduce or repeat arguments based on erroneous information.
But it seems they just can't let go of it.
Here's something i cant let go of tin match box empty.
We don't need to go over this library nonsense the empty tin match box proves the point.
"All you need is positivity"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1406
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 7:30 am: |
|
Jenni,
Don't be fooled.
Caroline suggests that: You still have to have faith in one of Mike's claims to believe he owned the book before that time.
But you certainly do NOT have to believe any of Mike's claims, not a single thing he ever said, to come to the logical and common sense conclusion that he knew the source of the quote when he gave it to Shirley the first time. Why? Because there is no other believable explanation supported by any evidence whatsoever for how he could identify it the second time.
Who first gave us the diary that had those five words excerpted and cited in it?
Who first gave us the Sphere Guide that had those five words excerpted and cited in it?
Who lied from the moment he gave us the first book?
Which book was publicly available first?
Either you choose to believe Mike's incredible fairytale about the miracle or you are stuck without any explanation for how he identified the quote except the obvious and common sense one.
Caroline and the old hoax dreamers are forced to do the former -- to blindly believe Mike's amazing and unevidenced story.
That's why it sucks to be them.
Finally, let me offer at least one first hand bit of reporting.
Caroline says, "All copies of volume two tend to open at certain pages, one of which is the page containing 'O costly...'. The one handed to Gray was no exception."
Well, I don't know if she means that all copies of every edition ever printed of Volume Two tend to open at the "O Costly.." page, but if she does, she's just simply wrong.
The one at my library certainly does not. Or at least it did not when I first opened it.
Of course, then again, it might now, since I personally have opened it to that page a number of times.
Hmmmmmmm....
I'm sure she was saying something else, though,
--John
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1407
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 7:33 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
We cross posted.
So yours didn't fall open to that page either.
Odd indeed.
Oh, well. This is Diary World. I guess you can just say stuff, you know?
Used to the patterns,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2178
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 8:44 am: |
|
oh drat! I found out too late that the tin match box did not contain anything!
"All you need is positivity"
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1726
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 1:59 pm: |
|
Hi All,
Back on April 22, I mentioned on another thread that Richard Crashaw and Fred Weatherley could be found next to each other over the breakfast table on Christmas morning, 1884 - their names, that is, in adjacent columns of The Times newspaper of that day.
And now for something completely different.
I have been wondering about the lines towards the end of the diary:
tis love that spurned me so,
tis love that does destroy
tis love that I yearn for
tis love that she spurned
tis love that will finish me
tis love that I regret
Was the diarist influenced here, perhaps, by another poem?
Or was he inventing, as he appears to have done with most of his funny little rhymes?
Where did he get an expression like 'tis love' from?
Anyone got any ideas?
I'm sure if we asked Mike, he would come up with a source for us in a matter of days, whether he was involved or not. 
But seriously, how do people think these words came to be in the diary?
Who writes stuff like 'tis love', and when?
Must go, Dr Who's on...
Love,
Caz
X |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2360
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 2:10 pm: |
|
Caz,
Google has ideas!
Jenni
ps guess you knew that already? |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 949
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 5:18 pm: |
|
Could this be it?
The game's going on rather better now, she said, by way of keeping up the conversation a little.
'Tis so, said the Duchess: and the moral of that is--"Oh, 'tis love, 'tis love, that makes the world go round!"
Somebody said, Alice whispered, that it's done by everybody minding their own business!
Ah, well! It means much the same thing, said the Duchess, digging her sharp little chin into Alice's shoulder as she added, and the moral of THAT is--"Take care of the sense, and the sounds will take care of themselves."
How fond she is of finding morals in things! Alice thought to herself.
Chris Phillips
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 950
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 08, 2005 - 3:02 pm: |
|
OK, fair enough, perhaps it isn't only Lewis Carroll who used that phrase, peculiarly apt though the quotation seemed, in the aspects of "keeping up the conversation a little" and "How fond she is of finding morals in things"!
I suppose what Caroline Morris wanted us to discover was that the words "Tis Love" occur also in the oeuvre of Richard Crashaw - just as they do in the works of Shakespeare, Milton, Dickens, and most other authors (though perhaps not Philip Larkin and Ted Hughes).
Perhaps it would have been more appropriate to ask which author doesn't use these words. But hope springs eternal in the breasts of the Maybrickites ...
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1728
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 5:36 am: |
|
Hi there John - er, sorry, Chris (just seen the name there, I was going by the prose ),
Thanks for posting the Lewis Carroll example.
I'll keep looking for now.
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 951
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 5:58 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
Thanks for posting the Lewis Carroll example.
I'll keep looking for now.
Do you mean you weren't trying to get someone to find Crashaw's "Hymn to St Teresa", in which the phrase "tis love" occurs?
You say you're going to "keep looking", but how on earth will you know when you've found it? The phrase really does occur in Shakespeare, Milton and Dickens as well as Lewis Carroll. No doubt it occurs in the works of many, many other authors.
Though I wasn't entirely serious about the quotation from Alice in Wonderland, I think the proverbial phrase "'tis love that makes the world go round" is as likely a source as any, if there has to be a source (certainly far likelier than Crashaw's "Hymn to St Teresa"). Particularly as it typically begins with a series of "'tis loves" - two in the Carroll quotation above, three in Dickens's "Our Mutual Friend".
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on May 09, 2005) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1735
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 7:19 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
...how on earth will you know when you've found it?
Well, if I found one or more of the diarist's 'tis love...' lines in an original work post-dating 1889, I think that might give me a clue, don't you?
More to the point, what were you doing, looking for examples written well before 1888? Is this a sign of a new open-mindedness? If you were 100% certain that 'o costly...' came from Mike's Sphere book, why would you think of looking at other poetry by Crashaw, of all people, to see if the diary author could have found the idea for his 'tis love...' lines there?
Wouldn't it be better to look see if there are any post-1889 examples of the lines, or at least 'tis love', in a book that your stupid modern hoaxer could well have been influenced by?
At least that might redress the balance, in light of the disproven claim that the real James Maybrick could not have been persuaded to get acquainted with Crashaw's work, when we now know (thanks to Rob Clack's research - happy birthday Rob!) that the Christmas Day 1884 Times article was recommending it to its readers in the same breath as the creative work of the real Michael Maybrick's lyricist.
Oh, and there is also an 1866 edition of Crashaw's work, that was published in four places, one of them being Liverpool. I understand that there is an introductory essay written by a chap who was C of E.
Sometimes it pays to start looking in the right places.
And I don't mean the works of Lewis Carroll.
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 960
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 7:41 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
... if I found one or more of the diarist's 'tis love...' lines ...
This is starting to get boring already, isn't it?
Your original question was Who writes stuff like 'tis love', and when?
Now it's been pointed out to you that the answer is nearly everyone, you want to find a whole line containing "'tis love".
Maybe the best thing is for you to try to find one, and let us know if you do.
Chris Phillips
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1446
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 1:45 pm: |
|
Hi all
I think, and here I am speaking as a poet not just as a Ripperologist, the line "tis love that spurned me so" is just lousy doggerel, and off-center thinking by Mr. Penman, the same person who thought that Maybrick might write he would "frequent" his club. In other words, phrases that sound as if they are period phrases but actually are bungled attempts at writing in an old-fashioned way.
Googling on "spurned me so" fails to come up with the phrase in any other poem other than on sites that quote the Diary. You might "hurt me so" and you might "grieve me so" but you can't "spurn me so." To use synonyms, it would be like saying "you abandon me so" or "you cast me off so" -- the meaning is nonsense.
Best regards
Chris George
http://chrisgeorge.netpublish.net/index.htm
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1742
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 7:36 am: |
|
Hi Chris P,
You say nearly everyone writes stuff like 'tis love', but everyone you mentioned was writing it before 1888.
How many post-1889 examples of 'tis love' have you managed to find?
Following your example, this is what I found by Crashaw:
Nor has she e'er yet understood
Why, to show love, she should shed blood;
Yet, though she cannot tell you why,
She can love, and she can die.
Scarce has she blood enough to make
A guilty sword blush for her sake;
Yet has a heart dares hope to prove
How much less strong is death than love.
And five lines later:
'Tis love, not years or limbs, that can
Make the martyr, or the man.
Love touch'd her heart, and lo! it beats
High, and burns with such brave heats;
Such thirst to die, as dares drink up
A thousand cold deaths in one cup.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on May 11, 2005) |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 969
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 7:58 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
How many post-1889 examples of 'tis love' have you managed to find?
Google showed up a few.
But I'm not sure what you're getting at. Of course a hoaxer would be trying to make the thing sound old. Of course he would use archaic phrases that are more likely to be found in old literature than in new, regardless of when the diary was faked.
And now you're quoting Crashaw, just as I expected you would. Again, what's the point you are making? I reckon "'tis love" is such a common literary phrase that its occurrence anywhere proves nothing. I thought you were implicitly agreeing when you said you were looking for a whole line containing "'tis love". Do you disagree?
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on May 11, 2005) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2372
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 8:03 am: |
|
here is a post 1888 example
http://www.pdmusic.org/herbert/vah10asmol.txt
Jenni |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 400
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 10:24 am: |
|
". Of course a hoaxer would be trying to make the thing sound old. Of course he would use archaic phrases that are more likely to be found in old literature than in new, regardless of when the diary was faked. "
Progress of a sort is being made.
I ask you to step outside the old vs. new hoax debate for a moment, Chris, and ask yourself one question. Do you really believe that Mike Barrett was capable of such research, such a nuanced approach?
Remember that we're talking pre-Google, although in some ways it's hard to remember a time when we didn't have Google.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2373
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 10:33 am: |
|
Robert,
but for the diary to be modern does not mean Mike barrett had to have faked it
Jenni |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 972
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 10:37 am: |
|
Sir Robert
Do you really believe that Mike Barrett was capable of such research, such a nuanced approach?
Firstly, I've never claimed that Barrett wrote the diary. But I believe his ability to identify the Crashaw quotation proves beyond reasonable doubt that he was somehow involved.
Secondly, I don't think including phrases like "'tis love" to make the language sound archaic amounts to "research", or a "nuanced approach". It doesn't take a very subtle intelligence to work out that the Victorian vocabulary was different from ours, or that Victorian handwriting was different.
But everything's relative. I don't believe the forger was particularly bright - I believe he made some crass mistakes - but obviously he wasn't a complete moron.
Chris Phillips
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 401
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 10:45 am: |
|
"but for the diary to be modern does not mean Mike barrett had to have faked it"
Of course. No question about that.
But not only does he not appear to have been the author, it also appears he can't identify the real author.
And, again, that doesn't mean it is a Victorian era hoax. It means that we really don't yet understand where the infernal thing came from.
From Hell, no. From Liverpool, maybe. And its age?
Haven't a clue as of yet.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2376
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 10:51 am: |
|
Hi,
who's handwriting has been compared to the diary apart from James Maybrick?
Jenni |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1504
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 12:46 pm: |
|
It's good to be back. I have been able to watch and see the way non-evidence gets deliberately turned into something masquerading as evidence within certain posts. And here we have en excellent example.
Before Caroline Morris gets into the habit of citing the Times snippet as evidence of anything, in sentences such as:
"…the Christmas Day 1884 Times article was recommending it to its readers in the same breath as the creative work of the real Michael Maybrick's lyricist.
I would like to remind readers that of all the poets mentioned in the brief little excerpt from an article on the history of Christmas poems, it was Crashaw that the Times felt it had to introduce its readers to, indicating that of all these writers, Crashaw was the one they would not have known. The article has to tell the readers about him (rather than the others) because most of its readers wouldn't have immediately recognized the name or known who the hell he was.
Also, the bibliographical information she offers was already offered here quite some time ago (as far back as the old boards, in fact) by someone else.
Me, in fact.
And, in any case, whether or not she thinks the real James Maybrick was reading Crashaw doesn't really matter.
Why?
Simple.
"Maybrick didn't write that diary - it's not in his handwriting."
-- Caroline Morris writing to me, Friday, October 24, 2003 3:47 AM
And also, the real problem remains. None of this explains exactly how Mike was able to identify the source of the quotation for everyone. Until the old hoax dream comes up with a believable and evidenced explanation for that one, all this talk is cute, but sadly irrelevant.
So I’m willing to watch them keep trying,
--John
PS: “In the same breath as…”? Man, talk about rhetorical spin. Melvin Harris would be | | | |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page