|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
N Cooper
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, April 10, 2004 - 12:37 pm: |       |
This is a debate I've been musing on for a while;
Does the study of the Whitechapel Murders of 1888 qualify as history? I think it is seen as a rather spurious field by accademic historians and often viewed as sadistic or chauvinistic. The fact it is largely studied by amateurs, that it involves horrific and largely inexplicible actions and that every year someone claims to have uncovered the murderer's identity all combine to give this field a dim view in the eyes of some historians.
However, it does have many traits shared with other fields of historical study. Firstly it has it's own terminology. Those who study it - ripperologists as they're known - are familiar with the 'double event', the 'autumn of terror' and the 'Goulston Street graffito'. Like other fields of historical study it is subject to dangers of anacronism, misinterpretation, incomplete source documents and the whim of popular imagination, compounded over 116 years.
But how important really were the events being studied? What do they tell us about late victorian London that we wouldn't otherwise know and does this constitute history?
|
Michael Raney
Inspector
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 265
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 12, 2004 - 1:35 pm: | |
It is History! Make no mistake about it. The deplorable conditions of the East End were forced out into the light directly because of the Ripper murders. It brought about changes in Police investigation. It brought to light the need for a real mortuary. It showed the world what the slums at that time were like. There are a multitude of issues that came out as a direct result of the Ripper murders. It should be studied in Social Studies classes as well as History classes.
Mikey |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1024
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 12, 2004 - 1:50 pm: | |
Mister or Misses Cooper
I think it unimportant whether the saga of Jack forms part of our understanding of history.
One must approach the case as if it is now - for it is - as the sad case of Jack can propel us both backwards and forwards in time in quite a unique fashion.
Studying the case of Jack is not to study history, it is to climb in a time-machine - along with HG Wells - and explore and then explode the myths that do form what you call history. Nothing is what it seems.
All is smoke and mirrors.
And one must be clever enough to blow away the imaginary fog that clouds the mirror and then see what is reflected in the image.
'Tis not history, but art. |
Mark Andrew Pardoe
Inspector
Username: Picapica
Post Number: 229
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 12, 2004 - 4:16 pm: | |
Whatho all,
As a professional historical researcher I say everything that happened in the past is history. Some of it is more important than others but it's still history.
I remember my father refusing the morning paper in the evening using the excuse "it's not news, it's history".
Cheers, Mark |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 333
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 12, 2004 - 7:44 pm: | |
To me it is history, because the events could only have occurred in 1888, and the results could only have occurred in 1888. Due to the number of problems in the clues, in the number of witnesses, policemen, politicians, and suspects involved the possible subjects for study coming out of the central story are immense. And since the heart of the story is the tragedy of at least five victims, the historical value (to me) is more valuable then studying the amount of in-coming trade from river traffic on the Thames in 1894 (to pick up the type of historical subject that is considered "respectable" by many scholars).
Jeff |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 723
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 12, 2004 - 11:03 pm: | |
Hi, all
Of course Ripperology, i.e., the study of the Whitechapel murders, is history. But it depends on how such study of the murders it is treated. There is a lot of hokum written about the Ripper and frankly a number of authors who have played fast and loose with the truth, among them Stephen Knight and Donald McCormick. Thank God for authors who have taken a scholarly approach such as Donald Rumbelow, Paul Begg, Philip Sugden, and Stewart P. Evans. In this sense, we should make a distinction between an academic / scholarly treatment of the murders and a more entertainment / sensational / or even amateurish approach.
I have just begun to read, Blood on the Moon: The Assassination of Abraham Lincoln by Edward Steers, Jr. (The University Press of Kentucky, 2001). Not having read deeply about the Lincoln assassination previously, I was startled to learn that it has only been in the last 22 years that serious historians have begun to study the assassination. Previously, although there has been much written about the subject---according to one bibliograph some 3,000 entries, books, monographs, and articles---many of these works are by amateur or avocational authors. This has led to the promotion of conspiracy theories, e.g., John Wilkes Booth survived and was not killed at the Garrett farmhouse in Virginia in the early dawn of April 26, 1865, Dr. Mudd, who set Booth's broken leg, was innocent and was not a conspirator in the assassination, Secretary of War Stanton or even Vice President Andrew Johnson were behind the assassination, and so on. None of those tales are true, according to Steers, who used primary sources for his study, unlike many other writers on the topic.
Unfortunately it seems that the Ripper literature suffers the same as does Lincoln assassination, a lot has been written, but the quality of the "research" varies greatly with much dreck and not all of the level of scholarly writing produced by writers such as a Rumbelow, Sugden, Begg, or Evans.
All the best
Chris George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info |
Kelly Robinson
Sergeant
Username: Kelly
Post Number: 12
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 10:13 am: | |
Regarding the posing of diverse theories: the same happens to Shakespeare as frequently. The authorship of his plays, his actual identity, hidden meanings in his texts, as well as the discovery of fragments of supposed new texts -all of these pop up all over the place, and no one suggests that Shakespeare scholars aren't historians. |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 725
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 10:46 am: | |
Hi, Kelly
Obviously theories are fine as long as they are backed by facts and evidence. Surely you must recognize that there is a great deal of variation in the quality of research done by various authors on the case.
All the best
Chris George |
Kelly Robinson
Sergeant
Username: Kelly
Post Number: 13
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 12:15 pm: | |
Absolutely agree! The field of Shakespearean study is as various as that of ripperology. The point I'm trying to make is that Shakespeare seems to the masses to be more credible than Jack the Ripper as a field of study, which I find interesting. Some of the Shakespeare books are complete hokum, but people seem to take them as serious history because it's got the Bard's name on it. On the other hand, even the cream of ripper study is looked at askance. Too bad. |
N Cooper
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 6:28 am: | |
Thank you all for your replies. It's Mr, by the way! Christopher, I agree with your point that the quality of research affects the historical standing of a topic. I've read Sugden's book and found it very in enlightening - it knocks into a cocked (black stove-pipe) hat a lot of myths about the case. I also found it more accessible than some books on things like liberal politics or the Edwardian Crisis. At the same time I think too many books are published on what you might call 'pet theories' which latch onto a suspect and present a scewed view of the events in order to incriminate them. This is back to front history. Although books that take an unbiased approach are generally inconclusive, they lift ripperology out of the realms of kitch and spuriousness into a much more respectible place in history.
Another thought - ripperology clearly has it's own historiography (the history of history). Maybe we should call it 'ripperiography'! |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 727
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 2:42 pm: | |
Hi N Cooper
Glad you have got something out of our discussion of the literature in the field of Ripperology. Certainly, as you note, a large number of the books on the Whitechapel murders that have been published have been suspect-oriented. In fact, one of the problems, at least until the past few decades, is that publishers prefer a book that names a suspect, for obvious marketing reasons. You may have noticed that although Sugden's book is mainly objective, he does lean toward George Chapman (Severin Klosowski) and I have been led to understand that the orientation of the book toward Chapman was a request of Mr. Sugden's British publisher.
All the best
Chris George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Bullwinkle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 3:58 pm: | |
We may have more to fear from those purveyors of the so-called "scholarly approach" than we do of the outright liars. The liars convince the unwashed masses, and thereby lead them into perdition, and we get rid of a lot of dead weight that way. But the scholars can convince some of us occasionally, and when WE are led down the primrose path, then Ripperology truly gets worse. Witness the large number of people who believe Robert Anderson and Donald Swanson were living in a world of their own making, courtesy of Mr. Sugden. And the equally large number of souls who were convinced the Ripper didn't write the graffitus or the Lusk letter just because he was a lust-crazed syphillitic, courtesy of Mr. Fido. We don't need any scholars giving us their good reasons to believe false notions. We need epistemology instead. We need a reasonable center for all the evidence to depend on logically, so as to know what to look for in the case evidence. We need the whole, the connecting together of everything that is connectible, so we can see the murderer and his intentions for what they were.
Always keep in mind--the scholarly books are sold right next to the Jack the Ripper porcelain figurines and the "I was abducted to Venus" T-shirts. Those above take anything seriously--that brings in a buck.
B.
|
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 3:22 pm: | |
Dear Bullwinkle,
Thou doest become more embolded by thy 'theory', but in all honesty it is but another 'brick' in the wall, another 'rung' on the ladder. The truth of Jack the Ripper is an open and unbounded discourse...in that it has no beginning and no end. In the eons to come I look forward to new Radkabobingians jostling for immortality!
[I have observed a discreet silence on the matter of your identity of JTR and the ramifications of your proposed 'theory'.]
Now sir, the woods of Dunsinane advance...TO THE BATTLEMENTS!
As Ever,
Rosie :-))
|
Bullwinkle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 12:23 pm: | |
Actually, Rosie, all I'm waiting on now is the Copyright Office, and then we're indeed off--not to the battlements--to sherical realms.
B.
|
Jason Scott Mullins
Inspector
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 211
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 23, 2004 - 9:52 am: | |
Hey David -
So long as you keep in mind that you can't copyright an idea, only the expression thereof.
Perhaps, an example: A car is a good idea.. but I can't copyright 'a car' I can only copyright my 'expression' of 'a car'... juxtapositing, You can not copyright your suspect, since, someone else can have the same idea as you. You can only copyright your expression of that idea (your theory) which is this case is probably some text and possibly a few drawings and a book.
Someone can take what you have done, change it around a bit and WHAM! They've got themselves a new theory. It doesn't even have to be a 'dirived' work if it's done correctly. If you doubt that something like this is possible, I urge you to look into the seedy software development world for numerous examples. I know you and I do not see eye to eye most times, but this is a area in which I have lots of experience. As this isn't the place for such a lengthy discussion, please do not hesitate to email me if you would like further assistance.
I'd also like to say that it is difficult to copyright a theory, since they normally deal with subject matter that needs a 'fact' (or a 'truth' for the more philosophical among us. Though, there is a large difference between fact and truth). I don't think Einstein could have copyrighted the theory of special relativity if it's correct.. to me that's akin to trying to copyright the sky or gravity.
I'm sure you know all of this, but I thought it merited mention since others may not.
In all likelihood, your theory has been thought of before. Many times before, probably. You've said yourself that 'we know his name' which means at some point, somewhere, someone decided to do a little research on him with the ultimate hope that he was the killer. Perhaps it would be wise to make sure they hold no copyrights on a theory first.
Oh, and anything that happens past right NOW is history, technically. Reminds me of that Spaceballs bit.
crix0r |
Deborah
Police Constable
Username: Elgyfu
Post Number: 6
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 4:15 am: | |
If there is one thing that most popular Ripper books do well, it is present a detailed picture of life in the East End at the time of the murders. I am sure that many people are shocked at the conditions - the fact that the victims carried every one of their possesions on their persons, the doss houses were people slept leaning on a stretched out piece of rope, the poor sanitation, poor street lighting and poor policing.. etc. etc.
Now that is history! Just because it is presented as part of the JTR case does not lessen its use. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1758
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 5:47 am: | |
Hi Deborah,
I absolutely agree.
Personally, as a historian, I am just as much into the historical and social context as the actual crimes.
I believe, even if we are shocked of the living conditions when we read about it or look at photos, that we can't really picture ourselves the full nature and impact of them. It must have been a terrible life for many people.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 210
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 5:51 pm: | |
Hi Deborah,
Glenn..Good to see you as always.
If you want to read some excellent Whitechapel history, pick up a copy of Paul Begg's "Jack THe Ripper, A Definitive History" and read the first 150 pages. Its good stuff! Very good book on the Ripper as well, Im surprised its not a little more popular than it is. Best regards.
Paul |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1763
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 6:12 pm: | |
Hi Paul,
Likewise, big guy!
I haven't read Begg's book myself, unfortunately, but that part you mention is well acknowledged by many, as I understand, as a good piece of work. I must try and read it when I get the possibility.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1094
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 06, 2004 - 11:58 am: | |
Glenn,
Do as Paul says.....now ! He cites a very good book indeed.
Paul Beggs book is the best there is that ties together Jack and the Social/historical context of the times......and someway the times before.
I really am sure you will enjoy this book.
Monty
.....just for jolly, wouldn't you ? |
N Cooper
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 7:07 am: | |
Hello again.
I've read the intro to Begg's "A Definitive History"; quite enjoy. It has a nice history of Spitalfields, which includes the fact Jack Sheppard was born there, (to my mind, the much more fun old-timey-criminal-who-is-called-Jack). I think that as a way of studying the East End of London in the period, ripperology does have some uses, but could you not learn the same stuff from Charles Booth's "Life And Labour Of The People In London" or Gustave Dore and Blanchard Jerrold's London a Pilgrimage? How much historical value does trying to solve this somewhat isolated and brief murder spree have?
As an aside- did anyone else see Peter Ackroyd's London programme on BBC 2 last Friday? (21 May '04) I'm very dissappointed that they dressed the ripper in top hat and cloak. Grr! |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
