|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Diary 10 Year Anniversary; Reflections
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
Diary 10 Year Anniversary; Reflections
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 03 May 2002 - 05:46 am |        | Hi Peter,
Well, John O observed that the Sphere Guide and 'O costly...' in the diary still give us 'the most significant piece of material evidence that exists in this case'.
So if this was merely a later addition by someone with access to the Sphere Guide, this most significant piece of evidence would be evidence of absolutely nothing at all regarding who created the diary and when.
By saying to John that 'we' would 'all' be back to square one, I meant that those who have argued tirelessly for Mike or Anne's knowledge of, or participation in, a recent forgery, would lose the cornerstone of their case, the only bit of solid evidence that Tony or Mike didn't find the thing in a skip.
But I don't personally think that the lines were added later, partly because somewhere along the line I suspect Mike would have mentioned it if he knew this was the case.
Just my opinion.
Hi John,
And as there is absolutely nothing anyone can say about the mentality, character or motivation of the author(s), beyond the fact that they decided one day to write the diary of Jack the Ripper, making James Maybrick the culprit, finally perhaps all we can say is that they either did it because they thought it would do themselves or others some good (materially or otherwise), or they had a screw loose somewhere. There is no way of telling from the text which option is the more or less likely - a sane author or an insane one, regardless of whether the diary was written in 1888 or 1988.
Has there ever been a case of one madman writing a fictional account of another? I don't know, but then again it's not everyday that we are presented with a diary like this one.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 03 May 2002 - 08:30 am | | Hi Caz,
Regarding the words in the diary:
We know nothing about their original order of composition. Even if the entries were written out all in one day, exactly as they appear, and in the order that they appear, that alone does not allow us to conclude that they were composed in that order or even in the same year or decade or whatever. The dating of the composition and production of this book must be determined in other ways (through the science, the language, the materials, possible influences and references in the text, etc.) But there is no way to know just from how the words appear on the page when they were composed.
It remains possible, for instance, that this whole diary except the Crashaw line could have been composed in one year and when the final draft was written out, in another year, the Crashaw line could have been added into the text then.
Or, the whole diary could have been composed and written down within days or even hours of each other. And the Crashaw line could have been included from the start.
However...
There might very well be good reasons to think that some of the prose in the diary was composed after 1988. There might be very good reasons, based on evidence, scientific and otherwise, to think that this diary was both composed and written down in the 20th century. There is, of course, no good reason, scientific or otherwise, based on any evidence anywhere, to think that it was written before the 20th century or that is is linked in any way to the real James Maybrick or to anyone who had anything to do with the real James Maybrick. No evidence anywhere.
But the case for when the words were actually composed and in what order has to be made using evidence other than just how they appear on the page.
That being said, the Sphere Guide remains the most (indeed, at the moment, the only) likely source for this specific line from this specific poem, for reasons I have explained at length. And we do know that the Sphere Guide was not in the evidentiary circle that surrounds this document until after the soccer disaster in the mid 1980's, right? So the best material evidence available in the case (the Sphere Guide) suggests that at least this part of the composition process took place after the mid 1980's.
It does not suggest that anyone in particular must have been the composer or that every other word in the diary must have been composed at that time (although that is certainly possible).
I hope that clarifies things a bit.
All the best,
--John |
Author: Peter Wood
Saturday, 04 May 2002 - 06:54 am | | It doesn't clarify a thing John, or Caz. All it 'makes clear' is that everything is still a possibility to you and you are ruling nothing out.
Nothing except the possibility of the diary being genuine of course.
So you have decided the diary is a fake, but cannot decide who forged it, when it was forged, why it was forged, which order the words were written down in etc etc.
Clearly John, you are under the impression that you are dealing with a fait accompli, you argue from the stance that the diary is a fake/forgery, without the evidence to take you to that viewpoint and then find it totally and utterly impossible to say how the diary was forged and by whom.
Talk about circular arguments ...
Peter. |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 04 May 2002 - 07:00 am | | Hi all,
As usual, and per our agreement to avoid repetition, if I have anything to say to Peter, I will say it via private e-mail.
--John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 06 May 2002 - 12:07 pm | | Hi John,
'I hope that clarifies things a bit.'
Thanks, but who for, and what 'things'? Your post was addressed to me, yet I needed none of that clarified.
'So the best material evidence available in the case (the Sphere Guide) suggests that at least this part of the composition process took place after the mid 1980's.'
You once observed (or at least I thought it was you) that 'O costly...' looked like it could have been inserted in the written page (perhaps along with the two lines 'chickens running round with their heads cut off', that appear further down the same page) as an afterthought. But whose afterthought? The original author's? A co-forger's? Or someone else's entirely - someone unconnected to whoever composed every other line in the diary?
I was simply observing that this possibility would allow for another possibility (neither of which do I personally find particularly compelling), that someone other than the original scribe lifted the two lines from Mike's Sphere Guide after the mid 1980s and inserted them in the diary - in which case they would not need to have formed any part of the original 'composition process'. And their existence could therefore tell us sweet FA about when the rest of the diary was created or who by.
I don't know how to make this any plainer, John.
The best material evidence available in the case (the Sphere Guide) only suggests that these two lines were written after the mid 1980s - if your own observation (if indeed it was yours - somebody here made it and somebody else agreed it was a reasonable one) is correct, that they were inserted by someone when the rest of that page of the diary as we know it had already been written.
I hope that clarifies things a bit.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 06 May 2002 - 02:51 pm | | Hi Caz,
I was simply clarifying my position on what we can say and what we cannot say concerning when the diary was composed, as opposed to what we can say concerning when it might have been written out, based solely on the words on the page.
We do not disagree about this.
You quote me as saying:
'So the best material evidence available in the case (the Sphere Guide) suggests that at least this part of the composition process took place after the mid 1980's.'
And you say much the same thing -- that our best evidence suggests that at least this part of the composition process (the insertion of the Crashaw quote) took place after the mid 1980's.
Nothing in my citation says anything concerning the time of composition for the rest of the document, although we know there is some reasonable debate concerning certain textual moments ("tin match box empty," the lines that RJ has cited from Ryan, and other passages perhaps even including the "close call" scene) that also suggest modern sources and modern composition. But this has nothing to do with how the words appear on the page, and is an entirely separate argument.
Yes, the Crashaw lines by themselves suggest only that someone composed this part of the diary (the appearance of these lines) after the mid 1980's. Yes, it remains possible that they were even added onto the page after the rest of the page had been written. Evidence for the composition of the rest of the volume must be found elsewhere.
Significantly, though, there is no evidence anywhere, that anyone has found, that even suggests that any part of this book was composed or existed prior to the twentieth century.
All the best,
--John |
|
|
|
|
