Acquiring A Victorian Diary

[StevenOwl]

Originally Posted by David Orsam

The fact of the matter is that there really isn't any information about Maybrick's life described in the Diary that could only have been obtained from "rarely accessed archives".

Thanks David, it's good to be able to put those to bed. Frustrating how much misinformation is out there, and equally frustrating that busting the myths brings us no closer to knowing who wrote the damn thing.

[Abby Normal]

Originally Posted by StevenOwl

Thanks David, it's good to be able to put those to bed. Frustrating how much misinformation is out there, and equally frustrating that busting the myths brings us no closer to knowing who wrote the damn thing.

ohh but it does. it does.

just not for people who don't want it too, apparently.

[Kaz]

Originally Posted by Abby Normal

ohh but it does. it does.

just not for people who don't want it too, apparently.

please explain to us how this brings us closer to know who wrote the thing?

[Scott Nelson]

Originally Posted by David Orsam

No, it didn't.

So the entry for Florence Aunspaugh on page 69 of the Maybrick A to Z book by Christopher Jones is wrong?

[David Orsam]

Originally Posted by Scott Nelson

So the entry for Florence Aunspaugh on page 69 of the Maybrick A to Z book by Christopher Jones is wrong?

Are you referring to the entry which doesn't say that James Maybrick referred to himself as Sir James and doesn't say that he liked to be called Sir James when at home? In which case, no, I think that entry is correct.

[Scott Nelson]

The entry says: "Another real point of interest in the papers is that she [Florence Aunspaugh] referred to James Maybrick at one point as "Sir James."

This is based on a letter from Florence to Christie that wasn't included in the latter's book.

I'm not trying to be difficult here. I'm hoping for clarification if "Sir Jim" or "Sir James" was used outside of mainstream publications.

[David Orsam]

Originally Posted by Scott Nelson

The entry says: "Another real point of interest in the papers is that she [Florence Aunspaugh] referred to James Maybrick at one point as "Sir James."

This is based on a letter from Florence to Christie that wasn't included in the latter's book.

I'm not trying to be difficult here. I'm hoping for clarification if "Sir Jim" or "Sir James" was used outside of mainstream publications.

You say you're not trying to be difficult, Scott, but you now ask me for "clarification" of something which I've already clarified! Is the entry in Jones' book accurate? Yes, I've told you that it is.

But in #679 you actually quoted me by using the quote function as saying:

"No evidence has ever been produced that JM ever referred to himself as either Sir Jim or Sir James nor that he liked to be called this when at home."

In response you asked me:

"What about the Trevor Christie Collection of letters housed at the University of Wyoming used for research on Christie's book? Didn't one written by Florence Aunspaugh allegedly state that Maybrick referred to himself as "Sir Jim"?"

I said that the answer to that was no, it didn't. And it didn't. And that's not what the Jones entry says either. Yet you came back at me by saying: "So the entry for Florence Aunspaugh on page 69 of the Maybrick A to Z book by Christopher Jones is wrong?" That question was based on the false premise that the entry says that Maybrick referred to himself as "Sir Jim" and that I was, therefore, mistaken, which I wasn't.

Now I assume you can read and understand plain English perfectly well so your posts are baffling. But assuming that you can read and understand English you might want to consider the section of my article entitled "Sir Jim" at this link:

www.orsam.co.uk/maybrickthefalsefacts.htm

[Henry Flower]

Originally Posted by Scott Nelson

The entry says: "Another real point of interest in the papers is that she [Florence Aunspaugh] referred to James Maybrick at one point as "Sir James."

This is based on a letter from Florence to Christie that wasn't included in the latter's book.

I'm not trying to be difficult here. I'm hoping for clarification if "Sir Jim" or "Sir James" was used outside of mainstream publications.

So it doesn't say that he was ever called 'Sir Jim', or that he called himself - or liked to be called - by either of those titles, let alone that it was a regular thing for anyone to call him by either of them? At one point - one? - she calls him "Sir James"?

[Sam Flynn]

It's self-evident to me that "Sir Jim/Jack" has nothing to do with what the real Maybrick might have been called, but with the imagined ennoblement that the fictional Maybrick craves. This is apparent from how the diary is structured, inasmuch as this shambolic word-dump can be said to possess much of a structure at all.

"Perhaps her gracious Majesty will become acquainted with it. I wonder if she will honour me with a knighthood."

Shortly after this, within a few sentences, Sir Jim makes his first appearance in the diary, in the closing lines of a verse:

"I deserve at least an honour / so all for a whim / I can now rise Sir Jim"

He only becomes "Sir Jim" when he receives this imagined honour from the Queen. In other words it's not a reference to an existing pet name, but a future knighthood that he's fantasising about.

[David Orsam]

Originally Posted by Sam Flynn

"Perhaps her gracious Majesty will become acquainted with it. I wonder if she will honour me with a knighthood."

Shortly after this, within a few sentences, Sir Jim makes his first appearance in the diary, in the closing lines of a verse:

"I deserve at least an honour / so all for a whim / I can now rise Sir Jim"

He only becomes "Sir Jim" when he receives this imagined honour from the Queen. In other words it's not a reference to an existing pet name, but a future knighthood that he's fantasising about.

I don't like to spoil a beautiful argument but, in fact, there are two mentions of "Sir Jim" in the diary prior to the self-appointed knighthood, both crossed out. The first being "M will catch Sir Jim with no pills", the second being "Sir Jim will do true".

The likelihood, in my mind, is that they are continuity errors by the author of the diary who had already drafted the knighthood section prior to the physical writing out of the diary but then added those lines into the poetry, not realising that he hadn't yet introduced the concept of the knighthood in the actual text.

Even if that's not the case, there is nothing known in any archives which supports the idea that Maybrick called himself "Sir Jim" or liked to be called that or was aware that anyone ever referred to him in this way.