|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Archive through November 15, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
Maybrick/Jack's watch?:
Archive through November 15, 2000
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 09 November 2000 - 06:58 am |        | Breakfast? What's breakfast? 
No probs, you did all the work for me.
I'm now off to miss lunch...
Love,
Caz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 09 November 2000 - 07:37 am | | Mr. Triola:
First, let me apologise for misspelling your name in my previous post. It was entirely unintentional, perhaps a case of election night grogginess.
As a prelude to my response, let me give you a bit of history. In my first bumbling attempts on this site, I was attacked by someone calling himself Anonymous. My offense was to claim that Druitt, Ostrog, and Kosminski were contemporary suspects. This was enough to set off Anonymous. But rather than snivel, whine, or obsess, I decided to examine the logical value of Anonymous's chiding, do my homework, and take more care in my subsequent postings.
Now I ask you, please, do not presume to lecture me on manners nor ethics. My memory of these message boards is perhaps better than you think. For instance, I recall your post of Saturday, October 28, 2000: "If an anonymous poster attacked Mr. Harris in the same manner that Mr. Begg was put upon, I would join in the crowd of respondents coming to his defense, not because I am partial to Mr. Harris, but because anonymous attacks are wrong."
But the sad fact is that on the very previous day and on the very same message board Ennui made his (her?) first post: "Jesus Christ. Mel Harris or The Caped Crusader..." etc., etc.(Fri, October 27, 2000, 11:25 a.m.) Here you had the perfect opportunity to prove your integrity, and defend Melvin Harris against an anonymous attack; but, alas, you fell short. Your words were hollow. As I stated in my previous post, and still stand behind, your indignation is selective.
But my main problem is not with your ethics, nor with your opinions, but with your vulgarity. Like me (yes, this is my real name) you sign your posts. Like me, you deplore anonymous attacks. But shouldn't one go further, and deplore all vulgar attacks? You seem to labor under the delusion that by merely incanting your name --evidently some incredible exhibit of integrity and manliness-- you are somehow entitled to pollute a public forum with foul-mouthed ranting.
I feel that throwing around religious oaths (though I personally, am not religous), strange ravings about bed-wetting, and talk about doors slapping people on the nether regions, are not legitimate contributions to a public discussion. I encourage you to look back and review what effect your strange hysterics of last summer had on the moderate and innocent bystanders of these boards, when, indeed, "the crowd of respondents" deplored your posts. If I can believe one contributor, a particularly extreme effort of yours even had to be removed. You sign your name, but this is not courage. It merely compounds your vulgarity with shamelessness.
Perhaps you relish this sort of confrontation, but I do not. Even as I write, I feel I am unwise by blundering into such a pointless argument. Respond if you like; I am happy to give you the final word. But afterwards, if you still feel the need to challenge me, please email me, so we can keep the board as free from such puerile fights as possible. Then, perhaps, we can come to some agreement on how to resolve this like gentlemen. In the future I will refrain from responding to your posts, but limit myself to discussion of the diary.
Regards,
RJ Palmer |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 09 November 2000 - 08:51 am | | From Keith Skinner to Melvin Harris
There would, of course, be absolutely no need for me to have to go to Liverpool and trouble Mr Kane, if you were to disclose (privately or publicly) the information which you have been withholding for the last six years – and which effectively could put an end to this bitter and damaging controversy.
But thank you for the advice regarding my visit to Mr Kane. If he does spin me out a “crop of stories”, these might be interesting, in so far as we might learn his side of the story and see how that compares with your representation of events. But, of course, whatever Mr Kane had to say would be of little evidential value without some form of support or corroboration. In fact, you yourself have adequately and competently demonstrated and given examples to this board of how we should all be deeply suspicious of people who make claims or statements, which they are later unwilling or unable to substantiate.
It’s a worthy observation but I do hope it will not be your valedictory. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 09 November 2000 - 09:32 am | | From Keith Skinner To Chris George and RJ
Dear Chris and RJ
Just a fleeting observation concerning your respective points about Richard Whittington-Egan’s publication, ‘Tales Of Liverpool – Murder, Mayhem & Mystery.’
If I’m reading Chris correctly, he is pushing towards a suggestion that the entire Maybrickian factual content of the Diary can be derived from the ‘Motif in Fly-Papers’ chapter in Richard’s book, without resort to any other source?
Am I representing Chris’s inference accurately?
I’m more than happy to have this discussion with both of you, but I’m sure that you will agree it’s all rather academic and inevitably pointless if Melvin Harris is actually in possession of the evidence which conclusively identifies Mike and Anne “…as placers, or handlers, of a document forged by others.”
Best Wishes
Keith |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 09 November 2000 - 09:56 am | | Hi Keith:
I certainly think that the Richard Whittington-Egan pamphlet provides a neat blow- by-blow account of the Maybrick family story that is to be found in the Diary. I would be reluctant to say that ALL of the Maybrick information came from the "Motif in Fly-Papers" chapter in Richard’s book, but would suggest that it probably provided the initial inspiration for the forgery and a jumping off place to find a text, be it, for example, the Ryan book or the Christie book, that would provide further information to flesh out the bare bones order of events recounted by Richard. As I mentioned before, I find it very telling that RWE talks of Michael Maybrick as a songwriter, which implies that he wrote the melody and the lyrics, and this is exactly the mistake made in the Diary, where the narrator of the story appears not to know that MM only wrote the melody and not the words. I also think it is pertinent that the RWE pamphlet was cheap and readily available to Liverpudlians, probably in many newsagents, whereas a book-length treatment would require hunting the book down in a bookshop or a library.
Chris George |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 09 November 2000 - 12:13 pm | | Hi Chris,
Small point.
You quoted earlier from RWE that Michael Maybrick, aka Stephen Adams, was a 'composer of many popular songs', which, as you can appreciate, is not actually a mistake on RWE's part, and would surely be how MM could have been described by anyone, in any publication, from the time of his fame to date.
What we've got here is that the diary author got the wrong end of the baton from whichever book he/she happened to be reading about Michael at whatever date. RWE's book - where it appears Mike found his own Maybrick info, whether this was while the diary was being created, or after Mike claimed he got it from Devereux, and was doing his own research - simply repeats the usual description which could have always been applied to MM.
Fake yes, but modern fake, not proven.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 09 November 2000 - 02:02 pm | | Hi, Caz:
You correctly identify a gray area when it comes to describing a composer who writes the musical scores for musicals and for songs in general. It is probably true that people generally say that Sir Elton John "writes songs" but in actual fact he writes the music and needs someone like Bernie Taupin or Tim Rice to write the words that complete the song. The American composer Richard Rodgers (1902-1979) in a career that spanned over 50 years collaborated with lyricist Lorenz Hart and then, when Hart died in 1943, with Oscar Hammerstein. Yet, on a site on the Kennedy Center award to Rodgers, it is stated, that Rodgers "was only 14 when he wrote his first song. . . ."
I do think though that, going back to the Richard Whittington-Egan pamphlet and its characterization of Michael Maybrick, aka Stephen Adams, as the "composer of many popular songs" because of the brief nature of the RWE publication, there was probably not the space or the need to clarify that Maybrick scored music to which a lyricist supplied the words. A book on the Maybrick case or further independent research on Maybrick in a biography of composers, etc., would probably have made Michael Maybrick's role crystal clear. Again, I think this possibly shows the importance of RWE's pamphlet as one of the prime sources used to contrive the hoax.
Chris George |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 10 November 2000 - 04:42 am | | Hi Chris,
Yes, I take your point.
Curious thing - when I tried to look up MM, or Stephen Adams, in the current edition of Groves Encyclopaedia of Music (Groves was a contemporary of MM), he wasn't there, which my brother, who is more into music than I am, found quite astonishing. However, I haven't tried looking in the original Groves, or later reprints, to see if MM got a mention and was later dropped for some reason.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 10 November 2000 - 06:51 am | | To RJ,
The problem with this anonymous attacks thing, as I see it, is that Joseph is being accused of attacking some attackers, while leaving others alone, using a similar style of attack, as he sees it, to illustrate a point - while most of us are sitting back not condemning any of ‘em. So perhaps he is at least doing something (even if you can’t see the point of, or condone, his methods). There is also the fact that, when Ennui started posting, there was no evidence – still isn’t – that he /she was anything other than an independent observer. Not so Viledictator (and other vile entities as well, it seems), who have conducted a sustained dirty tricks campaign against anyone who questioned Melvin’s word. (Beats me why they thought it necessary, let alone ethical, if Melvin already had right on his side.) Anyway, the crucial factor is that Joseph says Melvin ‘knew the perpetrator.’ Yet Melvin evidently thought he/she was a perfectly legitimate and honest weapon in his armoury. This is what I believe most fair-minded and impartial folk would see as jarring with Melvin’s self-styled ‘Yours for Integrity’, etc.
If Joseph had set himself up as Mother Teresa, we could similarly deplore his hypocrisy, in using vulgarity as a weapon.
I hope this helps.
Love,
Caz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Sunday, 12 November 2000 - 02:00 am | | Caz--As promised, a response to your post of November 8th.
But first, a word about the above. Um, as Bill Clinton once said, I am contrite. In deference to Mr. Triola, and in keeping with my promise not to 'argue about the argument', I'll only say that your point is noted, and that I hope Joseph won't mind me saying that he has sent me a gentlemanly explanation of his views.
The world is comprised mainly of people who nod off in history class. Though it must be tedious for onlookers to have to scroll past what Shakespeare might have called the i{contumely} of this message board, perhaps in some sense it is reassuring that there are still those who become impassioned about ideas, philosophies, and the finer points of historical research. As an old professor of mine once remarked, 'if you can't be passionate about ideas, you can't be passionate about anything.' Harris, Fido, Begg, Triola, and the other posters on this board have blood in their veins, not ice water. (This is a good thing).
But, to the diary.
I don't believe we are necessarily at an impasse. (I'll expand more on this in a minute). Of course I haven't the foggiest idea of what Melvin Harris knows, and whether or not there might be some mistake on when the Sphere book was lodged with Mike Barrett's solicitor. But whatever the truth, I think it would be dangerous to suggest that Mr. Harris's views therefore have no value. In my opinion, he certainly must have some valuable information, and is not merely making things up. (Which I don't think is what you are implying). The fact files speak for themselves.
But in regards to my views (which, of course, is what your are asking) this is neither here nor there. Though I myself must plead guilty to bandying about the idea that there are various 'camps', I tend to think that this is a myth. There are widely different theories about 'who' and 'why' even among those who believe the diary to be composed post-1987, and even among those who have substantial contact with one another. As way of example, sometime back I received private communications from an intelligent and fair-minded gentleman who nearly never posts here but obviously has given a great deal of thought to the Maybrick diary. Though I didn't know the exact details of his views, he clearly had his own independent theories and ideas; it is fairly clear that Peter Birchwood also has his. As does Paul Begg. I have mine (of infinitely less value) and no doubt you have yours. My theory is probably wildly different from that of Melvin Harris, and, of course, of Keith Skinner. This doesn't mean that I don't realize that those two gentlemen are privvy to reams of information that I'm not, as well as personal contact with those involved. But, as Will Rogers once said, "I only know what I read in the papers", so I can't really apologize if my individual theory is merely the result of the deductions (fair-minded, I hope) from the close study of the material that I've managed to dig up in print.
But one point. In Paul Begg's concise response to Ennui on November 9th, he said something that rather took me by surprise. "The question seeking an answer is not if or when the 'diary' was forged, but who forged it." Though, frankly, I agree with him, I thought that among those who post here (specifically you and Keith Skinner) the primary question is still when. If one believes that the 'when' is definitely post-1987, then, naturally, it becomes impossible for anyone to have read the diary in 1968/69. Thus, it means that Anne Graham knows something she is not telling. Though the following question might sound impetuous, it is only meant to be forthright. (Not to argue the argument here!) If we are to demand that Melvin Harris reveal what he knows --ie., those of us that believe that the diary is post-1987--, couldn't many of the same questions be demanded of Anne Graham? Now I am sensitive to the fact that this sort of statement must be exasperating to those who know and trust Ms. Graham, but it seems to me that if she continues to claim to know only that the diary was found in a tin box of her father's, then there is a definite impasse on that end. It is certainly none of my business and I don't wish to suggest that anyone do anything. But, since you asked my opinion, I'll say that it seems likely that the only way the diary controversy could possibly be resolved would be if Mr. Skinner and Mr. Harris met in private and exchanged information. This might lead to something.
As to your question about the Whittington-Egan booklet being in Tony Devereaux's estate. I don't conclude anything from that fact, actually. What do you conclude? Among others, Kenneth Rendell made the point in Forging History that Devereaux's family didn't have any knowledge that Tony had had this obviously 'very valuable' Maybrick diary. But this might well be consistent with Anne Graham's story; if he had merely passed it on through her, he wouldn't know anything. It might also be consistent with those who theorize that Devereaux never had anything whatsoever to do with the hoax, and that his untimely death was used as a convenient, if unlikely provenance. But for this, we must accept that Mike and Tony were friends and Mike might have discussed the diary with him anyway. (This is somewhat of a stretch, but no more than a whole host of other stretches). And then, still, it is also consistent with the theory that Devereaux was involved in the forgery, since presumably, he wouldn't tell his family if he was. The copy of Murder, Mayhem, Myster had Mike Barrett's signature in it, if I remember right. So, I think that Peter Birchwood's remark is justified. The important point would be to find out when Mike bought the copy of the book. Published 1967, does that mean anything?
Well, I'm being very long-winded. Apologies. I have a few more tedious bits of minutea of my own, but I'll save them for now. May I ask one thing? Is your main problem with believing the diary a modern hoax (involving Anne & Mike) the lack of corroboration to Mike's confession? Could his confession be innaccurate for another reason, such as wanting to implicate his father-in-law? Also (I already asked this a long time ago), do you know if anyone ever established that Mike had worked in the Poste House pub like he claims? Perhaps you could ask Mr. Skinner?
Thanks, and best regards,
RJ Palmer |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 12 November 2000 - 08:30 am | | | Mr. Palmer, I wrote that the question was who rather than when or why, because, whatever Keith’s personal belief about when the ‘diary’ was composed may be, for some time he has been questioning the evidence on which is based the popular and ‘obvious’ ‘Mike and Anne did it together for gain’ theory. You wrote: “If one believes that the 'when' is definitely post-1987, then, naturally, it becomes impossible for anyone to have read the diary in 1968/69. Thus, it means that Anne Graham knows something she is not telling.” This is absolutely true, which is why Keith and Caroline were and are probing the evidence on which belief that the ‘diary’ is a post-87 creation is based. That’s why they are seeking clarification about when the Sphere book was lodged with Mike’s solicitor, and so forth, because so many of the seemingly solid foundations on which reasoning is based doesn’t seem so solid when shaken. I think this is the right way to go, because we should test all the evidence. Only by doing that can we be sure what’s solid and what isn’t. |
Author: Ennui
Sunday, 12 November 2000 - 07:08 pm | | | Thanks to both Paul Begg and Caz for answering my questions. I have been away for the holiday weekend so I apologise for the late response. So is it assumed that there is no 'legal reason' why Harris is prevented from answering questions and that is his smoke and mirror answer to keep him from having to admit that he doesn't know who forged the diary and that gun was jumped in the newspaper article claiming that the forgers were known? Is it assumed that he is as cluless as the rest of us who forged it but doesn't want to lose face? I don't mean to keep harping on this but I am having difficulty understanding why he is not being more forthcoming with his information. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 13 November 2000 - 08:31 am | | Hi RJ, Paul, Ennui, All,
RJ,
Thank you very much for your response. I will certainly pass all your comments on to Keith. I do so agree with you that everyone with views on the diary could be said to be occupying their own little tent in their own camp-site! (In my case, it's probably down to the garlic I had yesterday!) The fact that Melvin Harris and Keith Skinner 'are privvy to reams of information' that most posters here are not, 'as well as personal contact with those involved', is crucial. It is why most posters' views remain only views. I feel very strongly that someone like Keith Skinner, who has lived and breathed the 'diary years', would not lightly have accepted Anne Graham's word for anything, especially when it flies in the face of the accepted ripper truths. It is obviously far too simplistic, and quite frankly shows a complete misunderstanding of what Keith is about, for Melvin to have suggested that such a person would be 'taken in' by Anne's 'been in the family for years' claim, and therefore somehow prepared to overlook, undermine, diminish or dismiss outright any powerful evidence for a modern hoax. Keith wrote on June 21st 2000, on the Maybrick Diary board:
'...the only way open to me of disproving the modern hoax theory, is by trying to prove it is a modern hoax. Which means nailing the forgers with irrefutable proof of their guilt....
Barrett said he forged the Diary. Anne Graham is a liar. These are facts which I've never abandoned. How can I?'
The simplest way to determine when may be to determine who first, out of the various modern suspects, can be tied to the diary's creation with absolute certainty. It doesn't matter which one - any of 'em will do - and it doesn't matter, for this exercise, that we may never get the full story of the nest of forgers, their methods and motives (however good a story this might make - especially interesting to see how Melvin's postulation of the forgers' thought processes measured up to the realities). Once we have the proof that Mike knew the diary was faked post 1987, there's an end to it all.
So any personal speculation on the when has to be put on the back burner, unless or until all the modern players can be cleared, one by one, of any knowledge of the hoax. I fully appreciate that this may never happen, in which case, I will be left without any theory worth developing further.
You wrote:
'If we are to demand that Melvin Harris reveal what he knows..... couldn't many of the same questions be demanded of Anne Graham?..... if she continues to claim to know only that the diary was found in a tin box of her father's, then there is a definite impasse on that end.'
The difference between Melvin's and Anne's info is that the former claims to know stuff he can't reveal or substantiate, whereas the latter claims she has now told everything she knows. We can demand all we like of both parties, hoping one at least will break their supposed silence, but if neither do, we will be stuck forever with our own conclusions, with the possibility that neither of them actually knows any more.
I also don't know what anyone can conclude from Mike's RWE being in Devereux's home. On the surface, it appears to fit with the original story of Mike being given the diary, unaware of it being a fake, by Devereux, then trying to research it himself, obviously turning to Devereux, until his death, for help with any queries and ideas as they cropped up. It could equally fit with a theory that Devereux and Mike were both involved from the outset, gathering material, such as the Maybrick content from Mike's RWE, and the 'O Costly..' quote from Mike's Sphere Vol.2, to pass to whoever was composing the diary text, and thence to the penman. But then Mike took the risk of using one of the circle of forgers (even though Devereux was dead by then), for the provenance. Would this have been agreed in advance with the other partners-in-crime, the diary composer and penman?My question was actually intended for Peter, in light of his thoughts, expressed back in April, that Devereux had no involvement. I still don't really know what to make of it all, but yes, if Mike didn't get his copy of RWE until, say, mid 1991, that would at least tie in with the original story.
One of my main problems is believing anything I hear, particularly where it appears to be reliant chiefly on Mike's, or Anne's, own testimony. Just because I've been questioning Melvin's word along with everyone else's, it doesn't follow that I am prepared to accept Anne's word that the diary existed prior to 1987. If that were the case, I could have read the diary books, come to my own conclusions and moved on. I simply feel that every avenue, every possibility, should be explored before I finally accept that any of those involved in the modern story - not just Anne, Albert and Mr. Kane - have been lying in a deliberate and blatant attempt to deceive people for some unspecified gain, commercial or otherwise.
Trying to understand why Mike 'confessed' is just a part of the whole, along with why he chose to hold back the proof, if indeed he possessed any.
In answer to your Poste House query, Shirley Harrison responded to your question, posed on the Maybrick Diary board on July 10th 2000, on July 11th, thus:
'Yes, I did check with the Poste House at the beginning and they said that to the best of their knowledge Mike had never worked there though I have no doubt Melvin will produce his pay slips!'
Ennui,
We are very much left with our own individual assumptions, I'm afraid, unless or until Melvin tells us what's what. As with every twist and turn in the diary story, there are no easy or obvious answers, otherwise I guess none of us would still be here.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Monday, 13 November 2000 - 10:47 am | | Regarding the point raised in Martin Fido's 8th November post regarding Melvin's "selective
quotations from our correspondence" I have been given the privilege of going through the relevant correspondence between both parties. The implication in the post is of course obvious: I however can see no sign that any quotation made by Melvin from this correspondence is given different meaning by other unquoted pieces or that any quotation is unfair or "against the rub" of that correspondence. There is of course an obvious degree of ill-feeling between Messrs Fido and Harris and although in a perfect world people should be able to settle their differences in a reasonable manner that is unfortunately something that happens rarely. Regarding the diary affair, it's well known that Martin Fido was, from the beginning, sceptical about it's provenance and is quoted as such in Feldman's book. The correspondence which I've been able to see bears this out. In one letter Fido says: "I enjoyed the assault (in "The True Face...") on Maybrick." In a letter to Nick Warren (15th November 1994, copied to Melvin) there's a reference to "Melvin's excellent ongoing work on the diary." There's also a line which must refer to a telephone conversation between Harris and Fido which is mentioned below and which concerns questions which Fido had been asked to put to Harris about criticisms of the diary: "I advised Melvin by telephone that I HAD been so requested , feeling it would be quite outrageous after all our previous conversations if he received out of the blue a letter from me asking that he respond to certain listed questions with the observation that his answers would be published." That letter was sent to Melvin on the 25th February 1995 and asks, on behalf of Feldman three questions one of which was about the "three books."
The above makes the following quotation from Feldman's book hard to understand: "...the Final Chapter" p94 1st edn. "In October 1994 Martin Fido sent me a detailed analysis of Melvin Harris's debunking of the diary (appendices 7-10 "The True face of Jack the Ripper".)
Martin's report described Harris's appendices as "biased, self inflating, inaccurate and often logically inadequate." Martin also stated that "His further assertion that the diary could have been "concocted by drawing on three books at the most" cannot be substantiated. On the telephone to me (15.10.94) he evaded the point by referring to the numerous books and articles on the Maybrick case that exist..."But is this truly what Martin Fido said to Feldman (and he has never denied it or insisted in this passage being taken out of Feldman's book?) In his review of Melvin Harris's "True Face..." in "Real Crime Book Digest" Aug/Sept 1994 he did include: "...but some useful appendices include a fine debunking job on the forged "Diary of Jack the Ripper..." There is surely a marked difference here: in correspondence and in a printed review praise for Harris's appendices and just a few weeks later a slighting and indeed damaging criticism of the same pages.
Going a little further back there seems to have been the problems concerning the radio show which Martin Fido has mentioned in a message which seems somewhat irrelevant to the topic of discussion. Now I do have problems in considering that Melvin Harris would be interested enough in a programme which seems to have concentrated on murder. To my certain knowledge Melvin Harris has never been interested in true crime as such. His work has with the exception of his three Ripper books been about fakes, hoaxes, forgeries and similar subjects. I was therefore surprised to learn from Martin Fido in his post of the 5th November:"I would discuss the unsolicited telephone call/s you made to LBC twelve years ago when you learned that I had been invited to contribute a regular radio programme, were it not that this would seem to give a personal edge. I would only say that though I was shocked by your underhanded attempt to supplant me, I gathered from friends that you had recently lost your house in some way and were in a state of considerable distress, which I assumed had caused aberrant conduct."
Surely there has to be a simple misunderstanding, possibly not directly involving either of the parties here? Certainly, although problems can come to any of us, as some of us here will understand, Melvin Harris has assured us that at the time in question he had no problems and was not in distress. So is it a storm in a teacup? Obviously not: in a field such as this where fact and first-hand evidence is all-important we can not afford to lose a Harris or indeed a Fido. It is simplistic, as some have suggested in another context to say that all problems will be solved if the protagonists take the advice of St. Rodney King and just get together. We all I think have to decide where our sympathies lie.
Lastly however in this lengthy piece I'd like to address the "anonymous" posts and the points made by Martin Fido concerning those who post messages for others. I have no hesitation in saying that over a year ago I posted two or three messages for Melvin to these boards. It was a service I was happy to extend to him as indeed I would have to Keith Skinner had he asked me. My view is that the words are those of the person whose name appears under them and my part was that of the mail delivery system and I find it ridiculous that those others who currently have done this favour for Melvin should be criticised for offering their services. Putting their own name on the masthead together with a few words about themselves does nothing at all for the content of the message.
Anonymous posters and those not filing under their full or true names have been and are a large part of these boards. We don't criticise Leanne! for not writing her full name and there are others who for many reasons are more comfortable in a certain amount of disguise. I have no trouble with this providing the posts are not obscene, rude, deranged or personally insulting. One person who at one point used only his first name which to my mind is on a par with Anonymous, had the dubious honour of having his post deleted. This sort of action was and is fully justified. There does seem to be a dichotomy in that those anonymes filing anti-diary and its exponents are treated much worse than those filing pro-diary. I need only mention a poster of some time ago who used several aliases including I think Jack Maybrick and who stated that he was a lawyer. He accused Melvin Harris of contaminating the ink samples. And of course there was Yazoo. |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Monday, 13 November 2000 - 10:51 am | | It's been said that Devereux and Kane were close friends. That's not true. They certainly knew each other and were friendly but by 1991 they rarely saw each other, Devereux being pretty much housebound. Mike Barrett has said that he never discussed Maybrick with Devereux although when he said this to the Police officer DS Thomas, Sargeant Thomas already had Mike's copy of the RWE book which he had been handed by Devereux' daughters and which of course had Mike's name inside.
Caroline Anne:
Keith has some certificates that he believes proves his Formby/Yapp contentions. He might be right: I haven't looked at that bit of research for some time. If he wants to put the details here, fine. If not, I'll quite understand. The will of Anthony Devereux (did you know that he has alternative second names?) is on the board and individuals must make up their own minds about it. If Keith is heading up to see Mr. Kane, tell him to make sure he has the correct address. I'd be happy to drive him up there so that we can form a committee. Mr. Kane has already been seen by several parties one of whom may have been Feldman or someone acting for him. If anyone knows about that visit I would be most interested to hear of it whether by publication here or by private email to me.
Get rid of the word "seem." It's not important when or if the Sphere book went to Mike's solicitor. If Mike had it pre-diary presentation then he had the ability to use the Crashaw quote which was available in that form in no other source. As far as I know the RWE book never formed part of Devereux' estate. It was Mike's.
The Ryan book is the crucial one as it's the only book that uses the form: "...the composer AND AUTHOR of many popular songs."
My beliefs change according to how the research which I conduct goes, Rest assured that when I reach a definitive opinion you will be the 56,079,274th person to know. |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 13 November 2000 - 11:21 am | | Sorry, Peter, I don't propose to debate Melvin by proxy.
Thank you for acknowledging that you have posted for Melvin. Provided he indulged in no personalities in those posts, I have no problem with your role. You don't say whether he did or not. If you posted any deliberate personal insults directed at me or anyone else, I hope you will see that for the sake of the other three 'postmen' it is, at the very least, advisable that in future you signal your postings for other people as Caz does when posting for Keith. If you posted any of Melvin's abuse of me, I should wish to hear your justification or apology before communicating with you again.
With all good wishes,
Martin Fido |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 13 November 2000 - 12:38 pm | | Hi All,
I was asked by Shirley Harrison earlier today (via an email from Paul Begg), to telephone her. I have now spoken to Shirley, who wishes me to relay a brief message to readers of this board.
Shirley has been unable to access the internet recently, although she hopes this will soon be rectified, but would like it to be put on record that she would be willing to meet Melvin Harris privately, in the presence of an independent observer, along the lines already discussed.
Clearly, if Melvin could simply provide such a gathering with his irrefutable proof that Anne and Mike were handlers or placers of the diary, forged by others post 1987, there would be no need to worry about the other impasse caused by Anne's refusal or inability to tell us more. And, more to the point, no need for anyone to carry on speculating, at least on these boards, about who did what and why.
Love,
Caz
PS Peter, I'm very relieved to hear that your 'beliefs' change according to how the research which you conduct goes, and that, when you reach a definitive opinion I will be the 56,079,274th person to know. At least I now know that many of the statements you have made in the past, which looked like - no, 'seemed' to me to be being passed off as fact, were merely your opinion, and of the non-definitive kind to boot.
BTW, do you remember when you called for all my posts to be dumped as well? Ah, those were the days, eh? |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Tuesday, 14 November 2000 - 05:26 am | | Caroline Anne:
How long ago was it that you were absolutely convinced of an arcane conspiracy concerning Weedon Grossmith and James Maybrick. Happily (or so you tell us) your opinion has since developed and possibly even changed. Ah yes, I remember those days when your spritely little interjections caused us great amusement and a certain amount of choler. Tempus fugit.
By the way, what do you mean by "as well?" |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Tuesday, 14 November 2000 - 05:27 am | | Martin:
I don't think that you were around a year or more ago(and I think that answers your other point) so you can sleep easy. However, based on your comments, next time I get a rude letter from the Water Company, I shall make my displeasure known to the Post Office. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 14 November 2000 - 06:14 am | | Hi Peter,
I now have more time to address some of the points you made in your post of Monday November 13 2000 @ 10.51am.
Please tell me that the following is not a blatant example of opinion passed off as fact (or your postulation of Keith's thought processes):
'Keith has some certificates that he believes proves his Formby/Yapp contentions. He might be right: I haven't looked at that bit of research for some time. If he wants to put the details here, fine. If not, I'll quite understand.' (My italics)
Perhaps you ought to check the research you conducted on Formby, since you were the one who used it to support your theory. As far as I'm aware, Keith has never expressed what, if any, conclusions he draws from his own Formby/Yapp information. So I'm sure you understand perfectly well why there is no need for him to put the details here.
You tried to make a case for Anne inventing the Formby/Yapp tradition in the summer of 1994, in order to give the diary a more believable provenance, on the basis that the Elizabeth Formby you found in the 1881 census was unlikely ever to have met Alice Yapp. Lucky for you that Keith was on hand to steer you away from this particular Formby. For all I know, you could have written a book, including her details as part of your argument for a modern hoax, and her own descendants could now be descending on your evidence to try to claim a share in the diary! It staggers me that you are prepared, publicly, to turn your own error around into some supposed omission on Keith's part, based on what you think he believes from his own research!
'It's not important when or if the Sphere book went to Mike's solicitor. If Mike had it pre-diary presentation then he had the ability to use the Crashaw quote which was available in that form in no other source.'
As I've said repeatedly, Mike's ability to use the Crashaw quote is not enough for the diary team to accept that this is what he did. But I do appreciate your round-about way of anticipating that the book may turn out not to have been with Mike's solicitor before June 1994.
And finally, 'The Ryan book is the crucial one as it's the only book that uses the form: "...the composer AND AUTHOR of many popular songs."'
This is more useful. You may conclude, quite reasonably, that the diary composer/author was influenced and misled by this particular passage. And presumably he totally missed the significance of the passage which informs the reader of the existence of James Maybrick's will, which was written in his 'rather shaky hand on blue paper'. He certainly made no use of this important clue, to make the handwriting look authentic. Another question for Mr. Kane I guess.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 14 November 2000 - 08:39 am | | “However, based on your comments, next time I get a rude letter from the Water Company, I shall make my displeasure known to the Post Office.”
Aren't you missing the point a bit, Peter. To put Martin's point of view in perspective, a
little while ago a person appeared in the Chat Room and under the guise of friendship acquired information he then used and threatened to use maliciously. This caused anxiety, distrust and suspicion, as many readers/posters can testify. Nobody likes the think that information provided in friendship could be passed to someone who would use it maliciously against them. That is the point Martin was making.
And why should someone do that? Well, that brings us to pseudonymous posters. I don’t think anyone has an argument with pseudonymous posting per se, nor do they have an argument with a legitimate poster like Yazoo or Joseph who becomes embroiled in heated and acrimonious arguments. The core point is about a pseudonymous poster – for it is believed to be one person - who has appeared, begun and maintained a campaign of vilification, then disappeared. He then pops up again and using a different name does pretty much the same thing. This person has used various aliases, among them Valediktor, Dear Diary, Anon, Robert, Alfred Grayte, Ivor Q.U. Estion and so on.
Now, some people here are of the opinion that this person posts messages on behalf of Melvin Harris. Whether Melvin Harris knows that this postperson is also the pseudonymous poster is not known, though there are those here who believe that he does and that he possibly supports what that person says. Be this true or not, if the pseudonymous poster appears here under his own name and appears friendly, but who in various pseudonymous guises bears Martin malice, then Martin is right to be wary don’t you think? I certainly think so. I also think anyone posting for Melvin who isn't the pseudonymous poster would also want to absolve themselves of suspicion.
I must say that I do agree with Caz regarding the Sphere book, although as far as I am concerned it has nothing to do with convincing the ‘diary’ camp, whatever that is, but has everything to do with identifying the forger. It is admittedly very suspicious that Mike possessed the Sphere book, but having the ability to use the quote is not the same thing as actually using it. And given Mike’s apparent ignorance about how the forgery was conceived and executed and his inability to provide verifiable evidence, there are legitimate grounds for questioning whether he had knowledge of the forgery prior to taking the ‘diary’ to Rupert Crew. The Sphere book isn’t evidence that he did, since anyone with access to the book (or a copy with a similar binding defect) could have taken the quote. I therefore don’t understand why you say that the date when Mike lodged the book with his solicitor is ‘unimportant’, unless, of course, you have evidence I don’t know about or have forgotten which shows that Mike was involved in or otherwise knew about the forgery? |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 14 November 2000 - 08:57 am | | Dear Peter,
You may be honestly trying to take the heat out of disputation and deflect indignation with light-hearted analogy. Unfortunately, in any matter concerning the abusive postings it is necessary to insist on absolutely straight answers on the main point in question. Bear in mind that you have put your name to the following statement: "I however can see no sign that any quotation made by Melvin from this correspondence is given different meaning by other unquoted pieces or that any quotation is unfair or "against the rub" of that correspondence." Now, assuming this comment was made in all honesty, EITHER you have not seen Melvin's letter to the A-Z authors including comments on Buce Paley ending 'Ah, well!!!', (which is in our possession), OR you failed to notice that the full quotation with all its punctuation marks goes very much 'against the rub' of innocent information claimed by Melvin.
If, under the cover of discussing your bills, your Water Board manager ever passes comments on your alleged hypocrisy, vanity and (amazingly misrepresented) religious beliefs, you will have little difficulty in securing his dismissal with loss of pension rights. If his comments are delivered by hand under cover of darkness, instead of coming normally through the mails, you will reasonably believe that the messenger willingly associates himself with the insults. I have thanked you before and will do so again for stepping out from the murky shroud of anonymity under which others who helped Melvin choose to cower. Nevertheless, given that I was under some heavy fire on the boards (generally signed though sometimes inaccurate), as Stewart Evans kindly showed me before I ever looked at them myself, I must ask for two very straight answers before discussing things further with you:
1. Have you ever posted a message for Melvin that made any reference whatsoever to me?
2. Have you ever posted a message for Melvin that included adverse comments on the character or personality of anybody else?
You may have, or feel you have, all the justification in the world for doing either thing, but straight yes or no answers are needed before I will hear it.
With all good wishes,
Martin Fido |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Tuesday, 14 November 2000 - 10:40 am | | I might be wrong, but I don't think it would be likely that two copies of the Sphere would have the same binding defect. The copies I've seen have straight hot-glue binding along the spine (ie., they're not sewn with signatures, etc). Melvin Harris used the term 'defect', but I suspect what he meant was that the glue on the spine was merely cracked so that the book opened in two or three different places. Maybe this "cracking" happened due to overhandling, or while it was cooking away in Mike's warm attic. I say warm attic, because (I've been told) England is a very dry and sultry country, and Liverpool in particular.
Mr. Harris would know whether I'm wrong about this or not; but then, he's gone. |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 14 November 2000 - 11:56 am | | | I understood that the books were supplied by the publisher for the fund raiser because the binding defect rendered them unusable for sale. I therefore assumed that the defect would probably have occurred during manufacture and have applied to a batch rather that to a single copy, which in such circumstances would never have been dispatched but would have been binned by the binders. If 'defect' simply means that the book had been used, the spine of the volume in question being damaged so as to cause the pages to open at the quote, then the issue is different. |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 14 November 2000 - 12:36 pm | | RJ:
You must have been told about a different England to the one I know and grew up in. The British Isles that I know are damp and cool, for the most part. "Showers," "intermittent showers," "showers with sunny intervals" are all terms that pepper the weather forecasts such that Brits are always on the look-out for decent weather. They have just in fact had (or are still experiencing) their worst rainy spell since the 1980's, with considerable flooding nationwide. I thus doubt that Barrett's attic was dry and sultry. Try cold and damp for large periods of the year. I think Paul may however be correct that the Sphere book had a binding defect that had nothing to do with conditions in the attic.
Chris George |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Tuesday, 14 November 2000 - 04:11 pm | | Your first lines are:
"Please tell me that the following is not a blatant example
of opinion passed off as fact (or your postulation of
Keith's thought processes):
'Keith has some certificates that he believes proves his
Formby/Yapp contentions. He might be right: I haven't looked
at that bit of research for some time. If he wants to put
the details here, fine. If not, I'll quite understand.' "
The following is a quote from Keith Skinner's message of the 15th May 2000:
"On which note, I see that Peter Birchwood has apparently
established that "Elizabeth (Granny) Formby lived in Everton
in 1881, making it unlikely that she would have known Alice
Yappity Yapp, the Battlecrease nurse who attended Florie's
trial?"
This seriously conflicts with my own research which places
the Formby family at the same address in 1881 and 1891.
Moreover, between circa 1881 and circa 1884, Elizabeth
(Granny) Formby and Alice Yapp lived just under half a mile
from each other for a period of two years.
Now, Mr Birchwood is a professional genealogist (I am not)
and it is therefore possible the basic information given to
me by Anne Graham about her family - from which we traced
back her ancestral line - was suspect, or I have identified
the wrong family. It is incumbent on me to check and if I
am in error the board will be the first to know. "
It's therefore clear that my statement is nothing to do with opinion; it's referring to what Keith has already said. I haven't bothered with this line of research since then. Presumably Keith has found he has the correct family: if he hadn't he would, as promised in his last line, have told us. If you had bothered to read this previous post I presume that your monumentally silly message would at least have been somewhat shorter. You also know (although a lot of new readers of these boards do not) that I have agreed with you in the past that there may well have been a Graham family story concerning "the skivvy" and Mrs. Formby and that this would have been a quite believable way of introducing Anne Graham to the Maybrick story. It's not of course in your interest to say this: your present comment makes you look a lot better.
Although it may not have been obvious, I do have some respect for Keith's researches: again obviously I have no respect whatsoever for your mitherings and muddying of the waters. Should I write a book on this whole sorry mess then research will be backed up by certificates which would prove or disprove 1881 census entries. If you ever publish your book on the Weedon Grossmith/James Maybrick menage a deux I hope that your research will be as good as that of mine and Keith's, albeit that he isn't a professional genealogist.Your sentence: " . For all
I know, you could have written a book, including her details
as part of your argument for a modern hoax, and her own
descendants could now be descending on your evidence to try
to claim a share in the diary!" is even by your standards daft and shows the shallowness of your understanding.
It's likely that the Sphere book was not with the solicitors until late in 1994. No matter how you squirm and wriggle about it, it simply is not important as I have said over and over. And your last point about Maybrick's will needs to be addressed briefly. Most people even today do not understand where to go to obtain a will. If a forger in 1990 wanted to have a copy of the will in order to see Maybrick's handwriting then the best that he or she could do would be to go to Somerset House and see it. And what would they see? A copy of the will written out by a clerk. The actual original would be in storage and could be ordered. So is the Maybrick diary written in imitation of a 19thC clerk's hand? And did Ryan actually see the original? |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Tuesday, 14 November 2000 - 04:12 pm | | Paul:
It is actually a relief to get on to a fairly sensible topic. Firstly, I don't think that I am missing the point here. Isn't it a matter of shooting the messenger if you don't like the message? I wasn't aware of the problem that you mention in the chat room as I never frequent it; my phone bill is high enough already. If this is at all analogous, then Martin would have a point but I suspect that it isn't. I have already said that my very few posts on Melvin's behalf were more than a year ago. You may or may not accept my word.
In the past I have also been attacked by posters who have omitted their full name. Some have been vitriolic and obscene and on that basis I would ask you to condem posts made by Joseph some time ago concerning Karoline and myself. I would also suggest that you condem the more recent "Merry Christmas" and confirm to us all that you were not the writer of the unfortunate posts under that name. Concerning the aliases you mention, I have no idea of the identity of the real author or authors and I do not know who was most recently posting for Melvin. None of them are me although my middle names are Robert Alfred. Again you may or may not accept my word.
I think that we should forget about the so-called "diary camp." It attempts to bring together several persons who each may have some sort of belief in the diary as perhaps an old forgery but have various reasons for so believing. Possession of the Sphere book by Mike pre Rupert Crewe is good evidence that Mike at the least had an input into the forgery. I take your point that someone else close to Mike could have known about the book and used the line but that alternative surely puts the ball into Anne's court and she has denied any knowledge of the book and the circumstances by which Mike got it. |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Tuesday, 14 November 2000 - 04:14 pm | | Martin:
Thank you for your message. To put your mind at rest again I am happy to reply "No!" to both of your rather impertinent questions. But you have not addressed the comments that I made and indeed have dragged in the Paley affair with which I am at the moment unconcerned. So perhaps you could refer to the points I made and perhaps explain the dichotomy between your published remarks to Feldman and your comments on the same matter in a review and correspondence.
It's of course possible that I don't know the full details about these problems so I would like to make you and your colleagues and offer. If you would like to ask Paul Begg to send me by fax/mail/email copies of the correspondence involved that has led to this unfortunate situation I will undertake to treat it as I have treated the material sent me by Melvin and make a report which will be as even-handed as possible concerning everything that has been written about recently. The only proviso I would make is that I would be free to post comments and extracts on this board. |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 14 November 2000 - 04:45 pm | | Dear Peter,
Thank you for answering my questions. As you think them 'impertinent', you clearly do not understand the potential embarrassment for other people who may have to answer 'Yes' to either question. This in itself would prevent me from wishing to appoint you as a sole honest broker assessing the correspondence in Paul's hands. Nor do I see why you think I should ask him to pass it to you for this purpose when you are quite capable of asking on your own account.
Far from being 'dragged in', the question of unsolicited defamation of Bruce Paley lies at the real heart of the differences between Melvin and the A-Z authors and is a part of my earlier posting you seem to prefer not to pursue. This, again, seems to me to disqualify you from being the ideal person to assess the correspondence, were any such wanted.
The other matters you wish to discuss fall within that region I indicated some time back may be addressed as non-disputatious questions to me via my publishers. I cannot imagine that people concerned with the Maybrick watch (or now the 'costly intercourse' quotation and the Sphere book) want to know details about the call/s received by LBC Radio offering to replace me in my programme back in 1988. And I must advise you now, that I am not going to enter into lengthy argument on the numerous and disparate coats trailed by Melvin, either in postings or correspondence. I will answer honest questions seeking genuine information.
Martin Fido |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Tuesday, 14 November 2000 - 05:49 pm | | | Chris--I must insist. England is a dry country. Yes, I've seen footage of the recent flooding, and was foolish enough to visit in the spring (Ireland to boot) without and umbrella (got very wet). But I live in the Pacific Northwest. Everywhere else is dry. :-) (Why do my dreary little jokes always fall flat?) But Paul Begg makes a reasonable argument, and I yield the point, since I simply do not know. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Tuesday, 14 November 2000 - 06:24 pm | | One final point about Crashaw. I can 'second' (isn't that a metaphor from dueling?) Melvin Harris's point that the excerpt O Costly Intercourse is unlikely to be found elsewhere than in Sphere. I've done some searching. As a bit of Ripper trivia, I discovered that the very unlikely "alleged" (I'll use a qualifier) Ripper suspect Francis Thompson was a big fan of the poet, and wrote no less than four essay/reviews on Crashaw and his works; but nowhere did he refer to that particular poem.
If the binding defect was noticed by Sphere and
the books were not released for sale, but only given out at the charity auction, than probably there weren't similar copies floating around in the public. But yuck. How come everything can be made into an ugly shade of grey? |
Author: Joseph
Tuesday, 14 November 2000 - 10:35 pm | | Hello Mr. Birchwood,
In your above post you assert,
"I would also suggest that you condem the more recent Merry Christmas" and confirm to us all that you were not the writer of the unfortunate posts under that name." (Peter R.A. Birchwood on Tuesday, November 14, 2000 - 04:12 pm)
I have just re-read a few of the posts signed by Merry Christmas; in a well mannered fashion, they ask pertinent questions to a rather obnoxious Melvin Harris. Compared to Valediktor, Merry Christmas is the tooth fairy, and the only thing unfortunate about the whole affair is your paranoia. Get over it.
And why should Paul have to confirm anything to you? Mr. Fido originally posed the question to Mr. Harris; has Mr. Harris given you the power of attorney to pursue this matter on his behalf? I suggest you address your question re: Merry Christmas to Mr. Fido.
Best Regards
Joseph |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 15 November 2000 - 05:27 am | | “Possession of the Sphere book by Mike pre Rupert Crewe is good evidence that Mike at the least had an input into the forgery.”
Hi Peter. Forgive me, but I am finding it very difficult to progress a discussion with you because you seem to simply repeat what you think is right as if the objections to it don’t exist. In my opinion, Mike’s possession of the Sphere book is not ‘good evidence’ at all. I agree that it is suspicious. I agree that your conclusion is fair. I agree that it may even be correct. But unless there are reasons I don’t know about or have forgotten, the ‘evidence’ is that Mike did not know the ‘diary’ was a forgery when he took it to Rupert Crew. His ownership of the Sphere book is the only evidence that he did, but nothing indicates that he knew about the quote prior to September 1994 and the quote could in any case have been taken by anyone with access to the book. Owning the gun isn’t evidence that you pulled the trigger! These are points that you should address, if you want to of course. Otherwise we just hit an impasse.
And no, Peter, this very definitely is not a case of shooting the messenger because you don’t like the message. I thought my post made this clear. We are not talking about an uninvolved postman innocently delivering an anonymous threatening letter. We are talking about a postman who may have written that letter. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 15 November 2000 - 05:34 am | | Hi All,
Peter,
I must have touched a raw nerve and I apologise. But, if you had bothered to read my post carefully, and had not missed the point I was making, I presume that your latest message to me would at least have been somewhat shorter.
Of course I knew precisely what Keith had posted on Formby - I started typing all the bloody stuff up for him myself three days later, and he even quoted from one of my own posts too! It's all ingrained in my mind, along with countless other bits of diary trivia, which return to haunt me in the early hours. (Note: must get a new hobby!)
I'll try again, shall I?
You wrote:
'Keith has some certificates that he believes proves his Formby/Yapp contentions.'
Could you please now direct me to where Keith's contentions have been stated, along with his belief that they have been proved by his own Formby information? If you can put the details here, fine. If not, we'll all quite understand.
Your earlier statement that 'If he [Keith] wants to put the details here, fine. If not, I'll quite understand', could have given some readers the opposite impression from Keith's statement back in May, which you clearly hadn't opverlooked: 'It is incumbent on me to check and if I am in error the board will be the first to know'.
Your 'Presumably Keith has found he has the correct family: if he hadn't he would, as promised in his last line, have told us', has at least restored the balance, so my post wasn't wasted. Thank you.
Finally, I'll stop mentioning your Formby cock-up if you stop mentioning Grossmith. Infantile? Of course - that's why you love [kicking] me so much. Deal?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 15 November 2000 - 05:43 am | | Help! Joseph! What are you trying to do to me? Having only come onto the boards a little before they were bombed by Bunker, and stayed off them for some months after that time as I was very busy, I've never READ any 'Merry Christmas' postings. Now you'll have these atrabilious disputants demanding that I dig them out of the archives and discuss them with them! (Which I will NOT do!)
Caz - surely you must have been making a joke if you ever proposed Weedon Grossmith as involvd in the case?
RJP - for what it's worth, and speaking as one of the very rare non-specialists in baroque poetry who actually LIKES a good deal of Crashaw and always made sure that my students were aware of his 'St Teresa' and 'To the Name Above All Names' odes, I have to confirm that the 'costly intercourse' quotation is so hard to track down (and, like much Crashaw, so difficult to understand and appreciate when found) that from the outset I said to Shirley Harrison that, odd as it was that Mike possessed the Sphere book, the quotation is almost a point in his favour, since it is impossible to imagine Mike Barrett making head or tail of it, or practically any other passage of Crashaw, (or of the commentary by my old friend and predecessor in the Andrew Bradley Fellowship, Christopher Ricks). However, though I don't want to get embrangled in the ongoing dispute, if Melvin has been making the point that the quotation's rarity and obscurity ultimately makes Mike's possession of the Sphere Book a distinct trout in the milk, I should have to concur, though thinking that it also definitely points to a hand other than Mike's assisting or directing him.
Martin Fido |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 15 November 2000 - 05:58 am | | Hi again Peter,
Whoops, I've just had an awful thought. If, by 'contentions', you simply mean Keith's statements about where the 'correct' Formby family was living and when, then this is where a misunderstanding could have come about. I took 'contentions' to mean the position you thought Keith was arguing for, as a result of the Formby info.
If this is the case, I apologise for misunderstanding your use of the word.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Guy Hatton
Wednesday, 15 November 2000 - 06:01 am | | Martin -
Would Mike really need to understand the Crashaw quote to have used it in the way it appears in the "Diary"? It seems to me quite likely that it could have been inserted essentially because it "sounds good", so to speak.
All the Best
Guy |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 15 November 2000 - 06:14 am | | Hi Martin,
If you can tell where my jokes begin and end, you're a better man than most. J
Just going to trip over the mat again...
Love,
Caz |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 15 November 2000 - 06:40 am | | Guy - I'm pretty sure whoever used the quote DIDN'T understand it, and assumed the word 'intercourse' meant sex. The misquotation, cutting 'death' to a singular is a further suggestion of incomprehension. But I think it would all have seemed so baffling to Mike Barrett that I can't imagine him reading ten consecutive words of it. Of course, I may misjudge him, having only met him after his drink problems began.
Caz - should you be signing 'dear wife Carrie?'
Martin Fido |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 15 November 2000 - 08:25 am | | Yes Martin, of course, perhaps I should. Trouble is, my first husband used to call me 'dear Carrie' but probably only because he thought I was so expensive....
What I can't understand is why the person who composed the rest of the diary would have indulged Mike with his Crashaw quote, then later let him loose with the damned thing, to do as he thought fit with it. And did you catch Melvin's explanation of what Mrs. Ha(m)mersmith was doing in there? If you ever feel the need for a quick chuckle to boost your spirits (I know I do), I'd recommend re-reading that post.
Love,
Caz |
|
|
|
|
