|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1259
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 7:27 am: |       |
Hi All,
And I bet John's ex has used those words on more than one occasion...  (Sorry, John, I couldn't resist that one)
John wrote:
Shirley said that the words looked like they could be part of a poem or at least some literary quote.
That's funny, so do the words I have given to Jenni.
Of course, as in Mike's case at the time, they might not be, either.
What?? I mean - what???
What is the relevance of they might not be????
For the purposes of John's little fun experiment, using Jenni as bait, they are assuming Mike knew nothing but went to look anyway. So yes, in such circumstances Mike would not have known whether Shirley was guessing correctly. But we know, with hindsight, that she was - no might not be about it.
Everything fell into place - the lines were from a poem; the poem was penned by an English poet (whose daddy, coincidentally, was vicar of Whitechapel); the words were written before 1889; and finally, the lines were contained in three copies of a book available on the library shelves entitled: English Poetry & Prose, 1540-1674 - all facts that Shirley certainly didn't know and couldn't have anticipated.
Even if Mike knew where the lines came from before September 1994 (and even if he had offered his own vol 2 by then to a teenage lad he hardly knew), he couldn't have anticipated that Shirley would ask him to look for the lines in the library, or that the library would come up trumps.
John also wrote:
And, incidentally, Mike, it turns out, found the line NOT in a book written before 1889, but rather in a book from the 1970s.
As with John's misleading might not be line, I'm not buying 'the spin, here people'.
It's obvious that a first glance at the spine of any one of the three volumes in the library would tell a browser all they needed to know about dates - 1540-1674 - the 20th century publication date tucked inside the volume not being of the slightest relevance in this case.
John is simply insulting his readers' intelligence here, if he imagines they are going to fall for his spin here. He already knows I am not taken in for one second by any of it.
Worried? Me? I couldn't be less worried. John is the one who is keen to make some 'deal' with me, and to emphasise that his little experiment is just a bit of harmless fun for him, to kill a few hours (and no doubt a few weeks for Jenni), because he knows as well as I do that it won't prove anything either way, and I'll be yawning whether Jenni succeeds or not (and so will she).
Why do I suspect he's worried? Because of his PPS: Have we finally confirmed for certain that all three copies were there on the same shelf in the library at the time Mike was supposed to be in the library?
And there was John, pretending it made no difference to his 'miracle' theory, whether Mike only had one chance to spot a book entitled: English Poetry & Prose, 1540-1674, or three.
Perhaps he was keeping his fingers crossed - KFC - that Keith Skinner wasn't able to establish with the library staff that the three copies photographed in situ would have been there back in 1994, when Mike claimed to be looking, and there would have been no reason for their removal from their position on the shelves (in alphabetical order - R for the editor, Christopher Ricks - see photo in Ripper Diary).
And now it suddenly won't matter again.
Because while Mike could have found it, theoretically, he said he found it, and he lies all the time - except when it comes to claiming a provenance for the vol 2 he produced three months later for Alan Gray, of course. But generous John allows Mike one out of two dodgy provenances - more generous than I am, I'm afraid. But his generosity allows him to simply carry on assuming what he wants to assume - KFC naturally.
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 840
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 8:09 am: | |
Boy, this little game really has 'em goin', doesn't it?
I see we're putting aside Robert's silliness about Crashaw and moving back to the miracle.
OK
First of all, I am not "using Jenni as bait." But Caroline's use of the phrase reveals exactly what she's trying to do, rhetorically. It's sad.
In point of fact, Jenni wrote to me and asked me to send her five words of any sort from any book in her library.
Just for fun, I made it a point to send her five words taken from a book I knew her library had three copies of and that was in some way related to literature written before 1888.
And no, I am not telling Jenni if the words are prose or verse. Mike didn't know for sure and neither does she. But perhaps after a certain amount of time, I'll tell her that, too. It won't make a difference as to what will or will not happen.
And Caroline's charming but goofy attempt to deny she is suddenly troubled by the fact that the miracle will not be reproducable in even a similar form is quickly belied by the tone and the tenor of the post above.
As for publication dates, my point stands. Mike found the words in a book about old literature published in the 1970's. That's all I was saying. Jenni might be able to do the same, so she'd have to check those as well as all the books of old literature.
And we should remember that Caroline knows absolutely nothing about what Mike did or did not do in the library. She's making that entire narrative up, since all she has as evidence is Mike's word -- and we have known for a long time exactly what that is worth.
So here little fairy-tale that has Mike just carrying five completely unidentified words with no clear intended meaning into a library and stumbling onto the only page in only book we have that has those exact same five words excerpted and cited in the middle of it (just like the diary Mike gave us) is pure imagination, not to mention completely miraculous and completely counter to anyone's common experience amidst library shelves filled with books.
In any case, I can't tell from her prose whether Caroline has accepted my offer of an agreement or not. (No surprise there.)
I am already willing to stipulate in advance that she will find the results of this little game neither relevant nor meaningful. We needn't worry about it. We know Caroline will be yawning no matter what happens. That was never in doubt.
As of the rest of us, we can have our fun anyway, and see what happens and see whether Jenni can carry five completely unidentified words into a library that has three copies of the book that contains them, and we can decide for ourselves if we find that interesting or not.
I assume Caroline is also telling us that we have in fact confirmed, by the way, that the three copies of the Sphere Guide were all there when Mike was. If so, that's good. I'm glad she at least answered my question amidst all the preemptory fire.
By the way, I hope everyone understands why Caroline especially cares about this one -- even more than all the other obvious and logical pieces of evidence that demonstrate this diary to be a cheap fake not written by the real James Maybrick.
But I do love what even the suggestion of trying to reproduce this unbelievable miracle is doing around here.
If anyone thinks they can do it better, set it up and do it. I'll play.
In the meantime, at least we'll have something new to talk about, which is more than the KHA crowd has been able to give us for many many years now.
Having a ball with this one,
--John
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1095
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 12:35 pm: | |
Caz,
you have lost me.
I know I often get lost around here what with the PFCA's!
I think we agree that Mike could have found the quote exactly as he says, which is good for my brain to know if nothing else!
But isn't it really interesting that the sphere book and diary should quote the exact same phrase ? Am i the only one who thinks so?
John,
no don't tell me, no clues until I give up .. I mean i'll find it no problem!!
Anyway,
by the way here let me just confirm that this mad library experiment was entirely my own doing. I mean now you think about it it's obvious isn't it, even John's not mad enough to think of something that crazy!!(sorry John!!)
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 502
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 12:58 pm: | |
Jenni
But isn't it really interesting that the sphere book and diary should quote the exact same phrase ? Am i the only one who thinks so?
Of course you're right that this is highly significant. In fact, I think there's only one person who is trying to ignore its significance.
Highly significant because if the diary were genuine, we would have to believe in the incredible coincidence of Maybrick picking out this obscure five-word phrase, and then in the next century exactly the same obscure phrase being used in the Sphere Guide. (On top of all the other difficulties about Maybrick being familiar with the works of this obscure poet and Mike Barrett managing to find the phrase in Liverpool library.)
But if the diary is a forgery, and the forger(s) picked the quotation out of the Sphere Guide, and if Barrett knew where it had come from, there's no need for us to swallow any of these coincidences.
Just the same as with so many other difficulties with the diary ...
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on September 24, 2004) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1097
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 1:01 pm: | |
ASIDE,
since the mention it I do have a brain of my own which I used to think of this interesting idea. I plan to enact the first part of my plan of action on Monday, i'll let you know when I find it, if its next year you'll wonder what I am on with.
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1098
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 1:06 pm: | |
Chris,
couldn't agree more!
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 842
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 5:47 pm: | |
Hi Jenni,
I apologize for Caroline's nasty little implications in her silly "bait" remark (since I suspect she won't).
You must understand that in some circles, as the song says,
Paranoia strikes deep.
Into your life it will creep.
It starts when you're always afraid.
We know why.
used to it by now,
--John
PS: No, that wasn't Crashaw. |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 844
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 8:21 am: | |
Hmmmmm.
Nothing.
Silence.
Around here, the future is not hard to see.
Anyway, the computers tell me that there are in fact only two (2) copies of the book that I know has Jenni's line it in the library branch she is using. She'll just have to find the book despite this deep and significant and meaningful difference, I guess.
Of course, as in Mike's case, it might also be in other books in the library. You know, it's too bad Mike didn't just "miraculously stumble" onto Crashaw's Complete Works during his extensive research -- I wonder, did his library even have that book? -- I suspect it must have. But he managed to miraculously stumble not onto the real source of the line, but rather onto a page in a book that just by pure chance had that same exact line excerpted and cited amidst prose about another subject -- just like in the diary!
It's a good thing he's not the same guy who gave us all the diary with that line also excerpted and cited in it, or people would think...
Uh....
Wait a minute....
But no, really, despite the fact that he owned that book and the fact that the two books have the very same specific line from the whole history of literature excerpted and cited in them amidst prose and despite the fact that Mike was the only person who could tell us all where the line was from, I'm sure it's just because he carried the five unidentified words with no obvious intended meaning into the library and found that other book with that same specific citation for the very first time.
I swear  the stories people will believe.
No amazing and staggering coincidence in that story, is there?
And it comes from SUCH a reliable source, after all.
Anyway, Jenni is all set to go and I hope she finds the words, just so we can see Caroline yawn about that.
I have actually tried to make them not too difficult to identify, even without computers.
With a smile this morning,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1100
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 10:21 am: | |
John,
are we still talking about this? oh well!
we can talk more next week after i've found it!
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 847
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 10:50 am: | |
Sounds fine, Jenni.
Best of luck,
--John
 |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1265
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 3:53 am: | |
Hi Jenni,
I’m really sorry I patronised you by getting it wrong and thinking John was using you. I now realise it was your idea to try this experiment and John is generously helping out.
I can hardly type these days, because I’m always shaking with fear. John is obviously much better than I thought at sussing people out, me included. He really could have been a top psychologist without even moving from his computer screen.
He’s sussed Mike Barrett out completely: a man who lies all the time - except when he needed an appropriate provenance for the copy of the Sphere Guide he produced for Alan Gray, so it would fit with his forgery claim. Somehow, John expertly pinpoints this as the one shining truth amid all Mike’s silly and obvious lies. Mike Barrett must have told the truth about owning the Sphere Guide from 1989, and therefore John can safely report that the library find never happened.
And, as Chris P observes, if the diary is a forgery, and the forger(s) picked the quotation out of the Sphere Guide, and if Barrett knew where it had come from, there's no need for us to swallow any of these coincidences.
No need at all – if, if and if.
And whatever the truth is, it cannot possibly hold any fear for us – right?
So if all Chris’s ifs are sound, he and John and diaryphobes everywhere need not be so dreadfully afraid of getting down and dirty with me and Mike Barrett to consider another theoretical (or, to use John’s words, made up) scenario – ie if Mike Barrett didn’t know until the end of September 1994 - and to examine it in as great a depth as we please.
Don’t be afraid - consider this scenario with me. To make it easier, I’ll emphasise the purely theoretical bits: Mike has no idea where ‘oh costly’ comes from because he didn’t put it in the diary – someone else did. He has just lied to the papers about being the greatest forger in the world, but then tells more lies when asked to support his story. His solicitor’s hasty retraction is humiliating, and can only add to the feeling that he’s fast becoming a laughing-stock.
If only Mike could succeed in making people take him seriously. Shirley has been pleading with him to start doing something constructive, like looking in the library for the phrase ‘oh costly intercourse of death’. At this point, Mike arguably has more incentive than anyone else involved, to come up with the source of the phrase, and show everyone his clever old forger story was true after all.
So what does Mike do? He misses the nearest way, which says go straight to my new friend’s house without passing go, pick up my copy of the Sphere volume 2 and triumphantly stick the ‘o costly’ lines under Shirley’s nose.
Instead he reveals triumphantly to Feldy’s secretary, then to Shirley, then to his solicitor (and later lets slip to Alan Gray too, and even gloats to Melvin Harris), that he has succeeded in finding the quotation. And the quotation is quickly confirmed available in the library. But the very nature of this claimed success clashes with his claim to have forged the diary. Somehow he has to turn this around and show that he has known for years where the quotation came from – but this necessarily involves a denial that he found it for the first time at the end of September 1994, three months after his confession failed to convince.
So what does Mike do? He misses the next nearest way, which says now go and pick up the damned Sphere book and stick it to that b…..d Feldman. Instead, he puts a further nine weeks between his sensational “I did it my way” story and finally supporting it with something real, something tangible – a grand total of twenty-three weeks before he could get his act together and hand over a copy of volume 2.
I’ve already considered the alternative scenario – beginning with the part where Mike decides to look for a suitable and unique literary quotation for Sir Jim to pop in his diary, and naturally picks up and flicks through his recently acquired Poetry & Prose, 1540-1674 for the purpose, coming across ‘o costly’ and saying to himself: “This is the one - and what have you!”. [We can then add in the rest, as above, including the bit where Mike gives his 'o costly' evidence to a teenage lad he barely knows.]
Now, this may sound incredibly unlikely to some, but obviously others, who sussed Mike out better and faster than I could, have thought this one through at great depth and are fearless in their total acceptance of it as a simple and logical explanation for Crashaw’s cameo role in the diary.
I wish them joy of it.
I am not sufficiently qualified to decide which is the more likely: that Mike lied about his library find, or lied about owning this particular volume in 1989 and using it for his forgery.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on September 28, 2004) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1104
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 4:17 am: | |
Caz,
was that an apology, if so accepted.
I have been saying for ages that Mike could have done what he said. Now I am doing something totally mad to try and get John to understand this. The maxim goes the quote was in the book the book was in the library, all Mike needed to do was look in the book in the library he was in which had the quote, a week, I'm seeing thats pretty lucky from where i am, but as you say that is the kind of book you would start with.
I just love the fact that even when I agree with someone they assume I am having a go.
Lets be clear on my position, I think the diary is fake , could Mike have found the quote, yes
Jenni
KAG by all means!
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 848
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 7:51 am: | |
Hi Jenni,
Keep your sarcasm detector on at all times when reading in Diary World.
Meanwhile, after two days of this topic getting exactly what it deserves, Caroline returns to Diary World to disturb the peaceful silence and tell another fairy-tale, completely unsupported by any actual evidence and relying totally on a wonderfully fatal combination -- the word of Mike Barrett and a miracle.
Caroline, once again proving she reads only what she wants to, has me saying,
"Mike Barrett must have told the truth about owning the Sphere Guide from 1989, and therefore John can safely report that the library find never happened."
So once again, for the record, I say that the library find never happened, and I say it safely, because it would be an unbelievable miracle and it was told to us by a known liar and therefore there is no reason to believe it.
The odds are astronomically against Mike carrying five completely unidentified words that he has never seen before into a library and walking out with the only page in the only book in the whole building that has those same five words excerpted and cited just like they are in the diary Mike himself gave us. It's like Mike saying he won the lottery (or he's about to die). You can bank on the fact that he's lying.
Look it up.
My only claim concerning this miracle is that Mike lied. It never happened.
And I don't need to believe Mike about anything to make that claim. It's a no-brainer.
Caroline's entire fairy-tale, however, rests on the belief that Mike told everyone the truth about the miracle.
I am delighted to be the one insisting Mike Barrett lied about this rather than the one saying he told the truth. That's always the more comfortable position to be in.
And, to add to this joyful nonsense, Caroline is trying to explain Mike's choices and behavior in rational terms. Not only does she simply imagine a completely unevidenced scenario, she imagines one in which she accounts for everything based on Mike behaving in a consistent and normal way.
Perhaps we are not talking about the same guy.
Or perhaps Caroline is just so purely desperate for Mike's little fantasy to be true that she'll do anything, including tell tall tales of a rational Mike as ace-researcher, just to keep hope (and this silly discussion) alive.
That may be the saddest thing of all.
--John
PS: Caroline asks the following question, rhetorically, I suspect:
"And whatever the truth is, it cannot possibly hold any fear for us – right?"
Well, we've seen the answer to that one around here many times over. A quick look at the DiTA thread will remind those who are not sure what it is.
|
robertjsmith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 5:55 pm: | |
For many years now, my position on the diary has been that it was written either in 1888/9 or in the ten or twenty years, which followed.
I took the span of fifty years from 1858 to 1907 because, during that period, Richard Crashaw was the subject of considerable publishing activity aimed at the literate public. As I shall show, John Omlor’s observation that James Maybrick died in 1889, entirely misses the point.
The publisher, John Russell Smith, kicked it off with the first new edition of Crashaw’s Complete Works in 1858. The sense of rediscovering Crashaw is evident in William Turnbull’s introduction: “It is something remarkable, that in an age when familiarity with our Old English Authors (sic) is so eagerly sought, a full reprint should have been deferred till now”. It is now accepted that copies of this book were readily available to the public.
Dr Grosart’s definitive two-volume edition of Crashaw’s Complete Works was privately published in 1872 and proved to have a big impact on the major critics of the time. What is John Omlor’s evidence for saying it was published in “an extremely limited run”. Can he tell us how many copies were printed, to justify that claim. Would he also please give the name of the “specific religious organisation”, for which he says the edition was published.
There can be no suggestion of a limited run with Edmund Gosse’s Seventeenth Century Studies first published in 1883 with new editions in 1885, 1897, 1913 and 1914, all published by the major house of William Heinemann (now part of Random House). Gosse’s influence on Victorian and Edwardian readers of English literature cannot be overestimated and the 32 page essay established Crashaw as a significant poet.
John Omlor ignores my comments on Gosse and those on Dr William Stebbing. Yet Stebbing in his 1907 book, The Poets, published by Oxford University Press picks out Sancta Maria Dolorum for an extensive eighteen lines quotation. I noted his rave review of the poem in my previous post of 15th September. This book may have been published nineteen years after the Ripper murders, but if that poem could be the subject of such adulation in a 1907 book, it is likely it would have been admired by many readers prior to 1888/9, inspired by the promotion of Crashaw by Turnbull, Grosart and Gosse. That is a perfectly solid proposition.
I do think it remarkable that four different editions of Crashaw’s Complete Works were published between 1858 and 1907. Publishers, as people often point out here, wish to profit from the books they publish. Nearly all the books I have cited were published by big publishing houses—Oxford University Press, William Heinemann, Macmillan, Methuen and Cambridge University Press. There clearly was a sizeable market for Crashaw’s poems, and for criticism on them, during this 50 year period.
John Omlor perversely tries to establish that, on the contrary, all the action was in the last 30 years. He tells us that an average of just 4 learned articles a year (122 over 30 years) have appeared. Is he really impressed with that output? And were any of them published for the public to buy from bookshops or to borrow from public libraries? Or are they only available as office-printed copies in university libraries and on academic websites.
He cites no books (or even significant parts of books), by or on Crashaw as being published during these last 30 years. Not even one with a “limited run”. It seems there was no edition of Crashaw’s Complete Works during the whole period. Certainly none is listed in the 1985 and 1995 editions of Books in Print, and they list every single book in print in those years.
Where did I ever claim to offer an “expert opinion”? It is a bit harsh of Omlor to mock my efforts at “literary analysis” and to describe them as “desperate and pathetic drivel”. I hope he is kinder to his students.
However, undaunted, I will make a further point. It is not actually me, but a number of professional literary critics, who stress Crashaw’s penchant for violent, bloodthirsty and erotic imagery (all in the name of religion, so what’s new). Just for fun, I counted the number of times in Sancta Maria Dolorum he uses the following words: death(s), wound(s), heart(s), breast and blood/bleed. Staggeringly, uses of these five words add up to 6% of the total words in the poem.
We’ll never know for sure whether the writer of the diary did ever read any of Crashaw’s poetry. But given the domination of these few words, if Mike Barrett did alight on the Crashaw poem, from which to select the one and only literary quote for the diary and to insert it at precisely the moment that Sir Jim is getting off on “blood pouring from the bitches” and “Cut deep deep deep”, then the man is inspired (or very lucky). Respect.
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1117
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 10:27 am: | |
If you want to know where I think the diarist got the quote from, I'll be upfront I think he (or she) got it from the sphere guide. However, Mike could have got the quote in the very way described, Maybrick MAY have heard of Crawshaw,
Robert,
why didn't the diairst pick these other lines, why did he pick he odd line cited in the sphere guide?
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 855
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 11:40 am: | |
Man, talk about spin. Talk about "entirely missing the point."
Let's watch my best friend Robert in action.
He promises us "considerable publishing activity."
And what does he give us?
And edition of Crashaw's Complete Works comes out in 1859.
A privately published edition for a religious reading group (and I will once again go back and find the name of the organization if anyone other than Robert really cares; I may have even posted it here on these boards years ago in my initial bibliographic summary of all this).
And a book on 17th century studies.
And then some stuff after James was dead.
I'm sorry, folks, but this doesn't even need a response.
This is "considerable publishing?" Within a much smaller time span, (thirty years rather than fifty), I managed, almost instantly, to find hundreds of publications on Crashaw listed in the MLA bibliography. And that means there were more that didn't get in.
And yes, if Robert had bothered to go to the website and type in Crashaw and look at the results for the last thirty years, he would have seen that this list included book-length titles that included Crashaw's work as a subject.
Not that any of that matters, of course.
Because there is simply no real evidence for his desire-filled but historically inaccurate claim that "There clearly was a sizeable market for Crashaw’s poems, and for criticism on them, during this 50 year period."
Unless, of course, by "sizeable" he means "fairly small." And given his reading of words like "Poste House," I suppose I must at least consider that possibility.
Then Robert whines, "It is a bit harsh of Omlor to mock my efforts at “literary analysis” and to describe them as “desperate and pathetic drivel”.
It wasn't harsh.
It was easy.
And so far, everyone else I have shown them to has said much the same thing.
Then he announces that Crashaw liked images of blood and Eros when he wrote of religious ideas.
Well, duh.
I said much the same thing, as did Martin Fido, right here on these boards years ago when we were laughing about the notion that James Maybrick was quoting this specific poet in his diary.
But, of course, that is not evidence of any sort that the real James wrote these lines or that they did not come from the only other book we have that has exactly the same line excerpted and cited in it just like the diary and was given to us by the very same guy who gave us the diary.
It says "intercourse" and "death." Gee, I wonder what would have made someone think about sticking it in a fake Jack the Ripper diary?
Sometimes the obvious around here is all but forgotten in the name of the byzantine.
And the reason for that is what is really shameful.
Keep trying, Robert. Someday even you will be forced to admit the book was not written by the real James Maybrick, just like all the evidence tells us and all the experts have concluded, and then the fun will be over.
So keep trying while you can. If nothing else, it's fascinating to see how long you all can keep this silly thing alive (despite the fact that it's a fake).
At times, you can only shake your head in embarrassment.
--John
(Message edited by omlor on September 28, 2004)
(Message edited by omlor on September 28, 2004) |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 858
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 12:04 pm: | |
One other thing.
Robert is quite correct in pointing out that the over One Hundred and Twenty publications I found listed at just one website for the last thirty years were not all written for the general reading public. Most of them are clearly scholarly critical essays written for those interested in 17th Century literature.
But that's the point.
It's just silly to say that Crashaw was being widely read by the Edwardians or the Victorians because he found five or six such publications, including a couple editions of The Complete Works, one of which was actually a private publication.
Also, if my best friend Robert is so interested in all of this, and in keeping the diary discussion alive, might it be proper to ask why he doesn't bother to join our little community so that his posts don't arrive days after he writes them and we don't have to march backwards in the discussion every time he appears?
Come on in, Robert. We're just regular folks, I know. But you won't catch anything from us.
Hoping to see him with his own rank soon,
--John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1272
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 11:06 am: | |
Hi John,
So no response yet to the question I posed a while back then?
I'll rephrase it:
Robert Ellrodt wrote, shortly before quoting from Sancta Maria in the Sphere book:
The Epigrammata Sacra and the other poems written before 1637 are filled with the imagery of blood and milk, wounds and breasts, and the psychoanalyst may gloat over the lines 'Hee'l have his Teat e're long (a bloody one)./The mother then must suck the Son'.
Now, surely even you can see what I'm driving at, when I ask if you think the forger took advantage of this info when writing about the one man in the whole of England most in need of psychoanalysis in 1888; having him taste the sweetness of Mary Kelly's severed breasts; having him thinking of placing the breasts at her feet; having Mary remind him of 'the whoring mother' - and then having him recite 'oh [sic] costly intercourse of death'.
Or do you favour it being just a pretty remarkable coincidence?
One more question, if I may:
Are you at least willing to consider that Mike may have lied about the provenance of the Sphere book he finally handed over to Alan Gray in December 1994?
I'm just exploring possibilities you see. If it's possible that he misled everyone, and didn't actually own that book when he claimed to have found the quotation in the library, I'm sure you can see the implications for the 'miracle' that you insist did not happen, and which Jenni and I say could have happened.
I'll leave you to ponder for - oh, at least 30 seconds, before I expect to see your considered response to my specific questions.
Love,
Caz
X
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page