The Lusk Letter - Swanson's Transcription

Again.... youve assumed the shape of the lowercase "r" and its flatly contradicted by several other "r's" in the rest of the writing.

Unless your contention is that he uses both types of "r's" arbitrarily.

Best regards

[Chris]

The 'i' would be undotted.

[lynn cates]

dot

Hello Chris. So in the first, would the "i" be undotted or would the curl function as the dot? (I actually know a few who write this way.)

Cheers.
LC

[Chris]

smezenen

I think you've misunderstood what's being suggested. The interpretation hinges on how the word should be divided up into individual letters.

I've tried to sketch below the two alternative interpretations:
Sir[upstroke]

Sor

[smezenen]

I will have to agree with PM here the leter is clearly an O but my reason for agreeing is not becouse of the way he writes his R's but rather his I's and O's.
If you study all the obviouse lower case I's and O's in this missive you will see all the I's end on a down stroke at the bottom of the letter all of the O's end at the top of the letter on an upstroke. The debated letter in this missive ends on an upstroke and at the top of the letter.

Well, that's precisely what people differ about - whether the second letter is an 'i' or an 'o'. There's no "clearly" about it.

Anyhow, I've already explained my interpretation in detail above:
http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...9&postcount=53

I had seen your post. I guess your argument depends on the shape of his r's and we have other examples of that character in the letter....at the bottom of the page in "Mishter". The r is just like I just typed it now....the second crudely drawn r in my insert....as in "longer", and as he does in "for". Granted there are some r's like the one in "From" that seem less obvious...perhaps because he finishes the previous letter halfway up the character, but even so, it clearly seems to be an "r" shape that is next.

Best regards

[Chris]

Im unclear on what basis Chris you are challenging what can be confirmed by simply looking at the reproduced letter itself. Clearly the second letter isnt "I".

Well, that's precisely what people differ about - whether the second letter is an 'i' or an 'o'. There's no "clearly" about it.

Anyhow, I've already explained my interpretation in detail above:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=104229&postcount=53

Im unclear on what basis Chris you are challenging what can be confirmed by simply looking at the reproduced letter itself. Clearly the second letter isnt "I".

Regards

[Chris]

Actually, with the help of Google Books, the earliest version I can find with "Sor" is that in Martin Fido's 1987 book (the centenary offerings by Begg and Howells/Skinner have "Sir"). So perhaps he is the originator.

[Chris]

Hello Chris. I believe that "Sir" was intended as a translation of the author's intent. (Free translation; "light editing." Cf. "Juwes" and "Jews.")

I don't think that's the explanation in the case of the Ripper books, because without exception they reproduce misspellings elsewhere in the letter.

As for the contemporary press reports, some correct the misspelt words and some don't. But none that I can find reads this word as "Sor".

[lynn cates]

translation of intent

Hello Chris. I believe that "Sir" was intended as a translation of the author's intent. (Free translation; "light editing." Cf. "Juwes" and "Jews.")

That Begg et al and Sugden use "Sor" is a tribute, I think, to their accuracy and scholarliness.

The best.
LC

[Chris]

Just out of interest, can anyone tell me when this reading of "Sor" rather than "Sir" first arose?

As far as I can see all the contemporary press reports on this site read it as "Sir", and from a quick look through the books I have nearly all of them do the same. In fact the only books I can see that read it as "Sor" are the "A to Z" and (strangely enough) Sugden.

[Sam Flynn]

Not to nitpick, but what exactly is Irish about this letter? Aside from the suss man who asked for Lusk's address before it was sent.

Because I honestly can't see any Irish dialect in it at all, just a bit (understatement) of illiteracy.

Illiterates wouldn't think to put a long "aaah" sound in "preserve", MP... however, stage Oirish certainly did:

"Presarve! hadn't they better cry royalty over the broad sea... Heaven's name! what have they to presarve?" (The Sportsman in Ireland, 1840)

"I presarve 'em underground, in an air of liberty which British oppression has never tainted" (The Lover's Pilgrimage, 1846)

"Do you give me the touch av your shoulther to presarve my formation... but we must presarve thim. What d'you want to do, Sorr?" (Soldiers Three, Kipling, 1890)

"God presarve us an' save us this night!" (Traits and Stories of the Irish Peasantry, 1896)

"you are presarved from his cursed arts" (The Dublin Penny Journal, 1834)

"Not where mere flesh an' blood is consarned. I'm afeard of neither man nor woman — but I wouldn't like to meet a ghost or spirit, may the Lord presarve us!" (The Dublin University Magazine, 1846)

"Saint Pathrick prasarve us!" (Our Young Folks, 1866)

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Not to nitpick, but what exactly is Irish about this letter? Aside from the suss man who asked for Lusk's address before it was sent.

Because I honestly can't see any Irish dialect in it at all, just a bit (understatement) of illiteracy.

[lynn cates]

clarity

Hello John. Thanks for this, it helps. I see little resemblance between the top/bottom missives and D'Onston's middle one--he has a clear hand.

I thought his wedding register signing was a bit messier. Also, I wonder if a neat hand could feign the "From Hell" letter. Unlikely?

The best.
LC