Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Not for nothing

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Pierre
    started a topic Not for nothing

    Not for nothing

    This thread is not about the GSG in itself but it is about the expression
    "not for nothing".

    In this thread anyone can publish versions of this expression, so that we may have a collection of different uses of it.

    I therefore invite those who have some examples to publish them here.

    The only requirement is that the examples contain the construction "not for nothing" and were written by authors born in Victorian times or earlier, but preferably Victorian times.

    Firstly, the expression was constructed like this in the GSG (just a reminder, no discussion about the GSG now):

    "...are not the men that will be blamed for nothing" or, if you prefer another version:

    "...are the men that will not be blamed for nothing".

    Now, some people believe that the expression was a "cockney double negative" used especially by the lower classes in Whitechapel.

    Therefore, it would be very interesting to see some examples for that use with the construction "not for nothing" here. So please post if you have such.

    But the expression "not for nothing" also has a long history in English literature, dating back to Shakespeare.

    I give you some examples here:

    Lancelot

    An they have conspired together, I will not say you
    shall see a masque; but if you do, then it was not
    for nothing
    that my nose fell a-bleeding on
    Black-Monday last at six o’clock i’ the morning,
    falling out that year on Ash-Wednesday was four
    year, in the afternoon.

    Shakespeare, The Merchant Of Venice.

    And we have it in literature from several authors born in Victorian times.

    Here you can see it in the literature of Jack London:

    Not for nothing had he been exposed to the pitiless struggles for life in the day of his cubhood, when his mother and he, alone and unaided, held their own and survived in the ferocious environment of the Wild.

    Jack London, White Fang

    It is also in Robert Louis Stevensonīs writings:

    It is not for nothing that this “ignoble tobagie” as Michelet calls it, spreads all over the world.

    Robert Louis Stevenson “Virginibus Puerisque and Other Papers”

    The expression "Not for nothing" is also in the writings of C.S. Lewis:

    It is not for nothing you are named Ransom.

    C.S. Lewis, Perelandra.

    “Be sure it is not for nothing that the Landlord has knit our hearts so closely to time and place – to one friend rather than another and one shire more than all the land.”

    C.S. Lewis, The Pilgrimīs Regress.

    So please publish your example(s) if you have some. Thanks.

    Best wishes, Pierre

  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by cnr View Post
    Yes, agree, Sam (Noswaith dda). It's very interesting. And Halse did say, "I did not notice anything then", which allows for a certain degree of ambiguity, ie (at a stretch?) the possibility that he simply missed it.

    Long seems less ambiguous when speaking spontaneously on his own terms. Long and Halse taken together, however, seems to give some corroboration to their individual contributions.

    That the police took the extraordinary step of expunging the graffito - and taken in tandem with their on-the-record opinions - speaks to some degree about their view that it was authentic.

    Also worth considering, is the possibility that as professional men of that locale (London) and at that moment in time, they may well have perceived something about the graffito, which has simply not come down to us by way of the official record, and that as burghers of the 21st century we are less sensitive to. I'm not saying it's the be all and end all, just something worth allowing for, when looking at the mix of reasons and issues that crop-up here.

    Irrespective, the police officials seemed pretty convinced - I am not necessarily taken by that, in and of itself, but it shouldn't be ignored, either.

    Regards, Stephen.
    I couldn't agree more. Well,said.

    Leave a comment:


  • cnr
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    I'm glad you said "may need to", as there's no guarantee either would have noticed it. Especially not Halse, who wasn't trudging along on his beat, and I daresay had his mind on other things when he passed through Goulston Street. The actual beat-bobby, Long, only noticed the graffiti after he'd found the apron, and was examining the doorway for bloodstains etc.
    Yes, agree, Sam (Noswaith dda). It's very interesting. And Halse did say, "I did not notice anything then", which allows for a certain degree of ambiguity, ie (at a stretch?) the possibility that he simply missed it.

    Long seems less ambiguous when speaking spontaneously on his own terms. Long and Halse taken together, however, seems to give some corroboration to their individual contributions.

    That the police took the extraordinary step of expunging the graffito - and taken in tandem with their on-the-record opinions - speaks to some degree about their view that it was authentic.

    Also worth considering, is the possibility that as professional men of that locale (London) and at that moment in time, they may well have perceived something about the graffito, which has simply not come down to us by way of the official record, and that as burghers of the 21st century we are less sensitive to. I'm not saying it's the be all and end all, just something worth allowing for, when looking at the mix of reasons and issues that crop-up here.

    Irrespective, the police officials seemed pretty convinced - I am not necessarily taken by that, in and of itself, but it shouldn't be ignored, either.

    Regards, Stephen.
    Last edited by cnr; 08-30-2017, 04:44 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Joshua Rogan
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    Cheers Joshua, I found it but with the map I'm using I can't get a sense of proximity. I need to look on the ordinance map when I'm home on Friday.
    It's not on the most direct route, but might have been taken if the killer wanted to stay off the (presumably) busier main roads.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Cheers Joshua, I found it but with the map I'm using I can't get a sense of proximity. I need to look on the ordinance map when I'm home on Friday.

    Leave a comment:


  • Joshua Rogan
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    I'm utterly useless with geography Abby and have no sense of direction. You would think that after 30 years of interest in the case I'd have the map of the area ingrained on my brain but no. I've just checked the NLS map (which is great) but I still find I'm moving it around and losing my place. I have an ordinance map but I'm not at home. Whereabouts is Church Street?

    Herlock,

    I believe the sighting was in Church Lane, which runs between Commercial Road and Whitechapel High Street close to where they meet up.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
    hi HS.
    would the walk from Berner street to goulston street and then back in time to mitre square fit?

    also, there was an anon sighting of a man in a peaked cap wiping his hands and acting suspiciously in church st. roughly in the time period. I think there is a good possibility this was the ripper en route from berner street so theres that in the mix too.
    I'm utterly useless with geography Abby and have no sense of direction. You would think that after 30 years of interest in the case I'd have the map of the area ingrained on my brain but no. I've just checked the NLS map (which is great) but I still find I'm moving it around and losing my place. I have an ordinance map but I'm not at home. Whereabouts is Church Street?

    I'm in London from 19th Sept to 30th so I might walk the area. I'm doing a 'walk' but as you know they avoid most of the sites.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by cnr View Post
    PS - the 'already there' interpretation, may also need to overturn Long & Halse
    I'm glad you said "may need to", as there's no guarantee either would have noticed it. Especially not Halse, who wasn't trudging along on his beat, and I daresay had his mind on other things when he passed through Goulston Street. The actual beat-bobby, Long, only noticed the graffiti after he'd found the apron, and was examining the doorway for bloodstains etc.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    I've mentioned this before but if the message was written by Jack (and no we can't know either way) could he have written it directly after leaving Berner Street? Maybe he stopped for a fag to try and calm down after being interrupted in his work? Maybe he got even more angry? Maybe he wrote the message in anger? Maybe later he felt angry that his 'message' might go unnoticed so he decided to leave the cloth as a 'signpost'? Maybe this explains the time gap? Depositing the cloth was an after thought?

    Sorry about the 'maybe' overload there chaps
    hi HS.
    would the walk from Berner street to goulston street and then back in time to mitre square fit?

    also, there was an anon sighting of a man in a peaked cap wiping his hands and acting suspiciously in church st. roughly in the time period. I think there is a good possibility this was the ripper en route from berner street so theres that in the mix too.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    I've mentioned this before but if the message was written by Jack (and no we can't know either way) could he have written it directly after leaving Berner Street? Maybe he stopped for a fag to try and calm down after being interrupted in his work? Maybe he got even more angry? Maybe he wrote the message in anger? Maybe later he felt angry that his 'message' might go unnoticed so he decided to leave the cloth as a 'signpost'? Maybe this explains the time gap? Depositing the cloth was an after thought?

    Sorry about the 'maybe' overload there chaps

    Leave a comment:


  • The Good Michael
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    The simplest explanation is that the (apparently) anti-semitic graffiti was already there before the Ripper jettisoned the apron.
    Absolutely

    Mike

    Leave a comment:


  • c.d.
    replied
    Originally posted by Boggles View Post
    A detective once told me criminals occasionally do odd things just after committing crimes and leaving the crime scenes. Often leaving clues. Possibly from exhilaration.

    We will never know why he wrote this, (if he did), he may have been enraged. He may have been having a little joke as he took a piss.
    Well that's probably as good an explanation as any.

    c.d.

    Leave a comment:


  • cnr
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    The simplest explanation is that the (apparently) anti-semitic graffiti was already there before the Ripper jettisoned the apron.
    Hi Sam, trust the skies over Wales are still full of dragons and sunshine today.

    In isolation, yours is a not unreasonable observation, but in the context of the evening's other events (and the series moreover), your very sensible interpretation is reduced to one more co-incidence in a series of co-incidences. And please keep in mind the issue of blame which is the active thematic of the missive: blame for the murders - and I believe, a reference to the anti-Semitic rioters with their chant of "no Englishman" post-Chapman, who had blamed the Jews.

    As Reid it (probably) was, who so aptly put it, in 1889:

    “He lives in Whitechapel, of that I am confident. His knowledge of the locality is astonishing". Indeed, JTR well knew his neighbourhood's raw nerves and exposed sinews - even if he had to dirty his hands to expose them himself, literally.

    PS - the 'already there' interpretation, may also need to overturn Long & Halse .

    Regards, Stephen.
    Last edited by cnr; 08-29-2017, 05:14 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Boggles
    replied
    And if he was enraged at the Jews the GSG really doesn't seem to reflect that but comes across more as a mild rebuke
    A detective once told me criminals occasionally do odd things just after committing crimes and leaving the crime scenes. Often leaving clues. Possibly from exhilaration.

    We will never know why he wrote this, (if he did), he may have been enraged. He may have been having a little joke as he took a piss.

    Leave a comment:


  • Boggles
    replied
    The simplest explanation is that the (apparently) anti-semitic graffiti was already there before the Ripper jettisoned the apron
    we wont know, but i find have to credit them that were there at the scene (busily scrubbing out the graffiti) with a little bit of trust when they saw connection

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X