How Are The Mighty Fallen

[Stewart P Evans]

Theological

The point is that Begg believes that we must challenge Fido's reasoning if we wish to demonstrate that Anderson might have published lies in a book. And to do that I presume one must go back to the original sources Fido worked from which Begg believes no one has ever done.
BEGG “Whether or not we can trust what a source tells us is probably the first and most fundamental question a historian must ask, and in many cases, we cannot know with absolute certainty that it can be. We can, however, draw a conclusion based on the sort of considerations used by Martin Fido.
More seriously, it was pointed out by Stewart Evans and Donald Rumbelow in jack the Ripper: Scotland Yard Investigates that “Given all the secret service work Anderson was involved in over the years, it is hard to imagine that he did not frequently resort to deception and untruths of one sort or another” Fido had, however, already considered and responded to that important point, stating that Anderson ‘had occasion to make his attitude to mendacity quite clear. He said in his memoirs that he perceived an obvious Christian duty never to lie to ones brothers : but denied that murderous terrorists and subversives were brothers, entitled to hear the truth they would only misuse” Fido went on to cite an anecdote told by the writer Hargrave Adam about Andreson lying to a suspected murderer in the hope of extracting a confession. Anderson was guilty of making a hair splitting distinction about acceptable and unacceptable lies, and in Fido’s view Anderson’s opinion of acceptable lies did not include ‘publishing lies in books for a wide audience”

I own several of Anderson's theological works and have read a couple. I fail to see how they indicate that Anderson would not have lied or misled in his secular works, indeed he did so in The Lighter Side of My Official Life over the Mylett murder for example. And what about the Arthur O'Keefe claim in Sidelights on the Home Rule Movement?

If Fido is so infallible in his assessment of Anderson from his study of him and his works how did he get it so wrong as regards Major Smith (cited above)? What Begg is stating is Begg's opinion - not fact - and you seem to interpret everything Begg says as fact. Distinguished historians and authors of greater stature than I signally draw opposite conclusions to Begg and Fido, are you saying these people are wrong?

Whether they like it or not Begg and Fido are in the minority over Anderson, can you not see that?

[Jeff Leahy]

The point is that Begg believes that we must challenge Fido's reasoning if we wish to demonstrate that Anderson might have published lies in a book. And to do that I presume one must go back to the original sources Fido worked from which Begg believes no one has ever done.

BEGG “Whether or not we can trust what a source tells us is probably the first and most fundamental question a historian must ask, and in many cases, we cannot know with absolute certainty that it can be. We can, however, draw a conclusion based on the sort of considerations used by Martin Fido.

More seriously, it was pointed out by Stewart Evans and Donald Rumbelow in jack the Ripper: Scotland Yard Investigates that “Given all the secret service work Anderson was involved in over the years, it is hard to imagine that he did not frequently resort to deception and untruths of one sort or another” Fido had, however, already considered and responded to that important point, stating that Anderson ‘had occasion to make his attitude to mendacity quite clear. He said in his memoirs that he perceived an obvious Christian duty never to lie to ones brothers : but denied that murderous terrorists and subversives were brothers, entitled to hear the truth they would only misuse” Fido went on to cite an anecdote told by the writer Hargrave Adam about Andreson lying to a suspected murderer in the hope of extracting a confession. Anderson was guilty of making a hair splitting distinction about acceptable and unacceptable lies, and in Fido’s view Anderson’s opinion of acceptable lies did not include ‘publishing lies in books for a wide audience”

[Stewart P Evans]

Point

Ah yes I think this is where the discussion had gotten to with Ally last night so I will put it in BOLD.
BEGG“Fido’s conclusion has been questioned and doubted and even ridiculed, but sad to say, I have yet to see anyone challenge the accessment on which it was based. Historians and biographers particularly study all they can about life and times of a person they are writing about in an effort to get inside their skin, to understand them, to know what they would not have said, written or done, What ever one may feel about the vagaries of human behaviour and the uncertainty inherent in forecasting any human action, it is or should be- obvious that a conclusion based on a knowledge of the times, on study of the sources and on a though knowledge and understanding of the influence on a person- how in this case other ‘evangelical fundermentalists’ thought about truth and how Anderson himself expressed his thoughts about truth- can not be dismissed on nothing more than ones own life experiences accompanied by a dollop of common sence”

I don't quite see the point of this post, other than you might have lost the plot. I have never seen two authors who so pompously promote each other and extol their own virtues.

[Stewart P Evans]

Arrogant

One of the most arrogant passages in Begg's Ripperologist article is the following.

"The criticism of Anderson is ill-informed and lacks cohesion. Critics don't like the identification story, but there is no single, solid reason for rejecting it. Instead critics flail around like a drowning man, grabbing onto any piece of detritus floating past in the hope it will carry them to land."

So there you are, do not dare to criticise Anderson for you are 'flailing around like a drowning man' if you do.

[Jeff Leahy]

Ah yes I think this is where the discussion had gotten to with Ally last night so I will put it in BOLD.

BEGG“Fido’s conclusion has been questioned and doubted and even ridiculed, but sad to say, I have yet to see anyone challenge the accessment on which it was based. Historians and biographers particularly study all they can about life and times of a person they are writing about in an effort to get inside their skin, to understand them, to know what they would not have said, written or done, What ever one may feel about the vagaries of human behaviour and the uncertainty inherent in forecasting any human action, it is or should be- obvious that a conclusion based on a knowledge of the times, on study of the sources and on a though knowledge and understanding of the influence on a person- how in this case other ‘evangelical fundermentalists’ thought about truth and how Anderson himself expressed his thoughts about truth- can not be dismissed on nothing more than ones own life experiences accompanied by a dollop of common sence”

[Stewart P Evans]

An Example

An example of Begg accepting one of Fido's 'observations' (which also appeared in his 1987 book) was as follows.

Fido, using his unequalled academic qualities, specialist knowledge of the Victorian period, and his blessing of 'interest in and understanding of the eccentric religious beliefs of Anderson and their influence on his character, and who has a general knowledge of the morals and mores of late Victorian society', wrote, "Another critic was Major Smith, but as Martin Fido observed, 'It goes without saying that Smith the worldling and Anderson the millenarianist were utterly antipathetical personalities. Neither can be imagined having any comfortable dealings with the other, or willingly exchanging confidences."

Begg endorses this conclusion saying, "This observation seems well made, since the attack on Anderson by Smith hardly reads like the two men were friends or even friendly former colleagues."

Well, they both got it totally wrong, in 1901 at the end of Anderson's police career he was in touch with Henry Smith of the City Police and both were on the best of terms and sharing confidences. So much for Fido's wonderful insight.

[Jeff Leahy]

Begg “MARTIN FIDO WOULD ANDERSON HAVE LIED?

In the chapter ‘the man who knew to much’ in his book. The Crime, detection and death of Jack the Ripper (1987) Martin Fido devoted a couple of pages to an analysis of Anderson, who he described as an ‘evangelical fundermentalist’ and how his religious beliefs would have influenced his thinking and behaviour. He concluded that one thing is certain about the dedicated and scrupulous Christian: he is not a vainglorious liar or boaster..and (Anderson) would never have lied about his professional life to enhance either his own or his police force’s reputation.”

PS I havn't started anything I was ask to expand and I'm doing so.

[Stewart P Evans]

Pompous

In Begg's 100th issue Ripperologist article on Anderson I found the following to be one of the most pompous proclamations I have ever read on this topic, "Fido's conclusion has been questioned, doubted and even ridiculed, but the grounds upon which it is based haven't been challenged, making the rejection of it rather lame."

[Stewart P Evans]

Yes

BEGG “He also rejected the until then widely accepted theory that Anderson’s suspect was John Pizer, convincingly suggested in the 1970’s by author Donald Rumblow in his book The Complete Jack the Ripper, and concluded that Anderson’s suspect was ‘kosminski’ referred to by Sir Melville MacNaughten in a memorandum written in 1894.
Fido observed that bothmen provided corresponding detail- both appeared to refer to the suspect’s masterbation (it being a silly notion common in late Victorian period that masterbation led to madness), Anderson calling it ‘unnatural vices’ MacNaughten “solitary vices” and noted that both alluded to an identification, this Fido deducing in the case of MacNaughten from reference to Kosminski resembling a man seen by a city PC (a claim itself not without problems!) Fido concluded, ‘sinse neither Anderson nor Macnaughten was given to lying or boasting their joint testimony ought long ago to have been given the highest priority”

Yes, both Begg and Fido never tire of rolling out this early mistake by Don in their books (it makes them look good to point out that they found a mistake by Don didn't you know?). However, glass houses and all that, I think you are going to regret you started this.

[Stewart P Evans]

Nothing Like

BEGG “The likes of Gladstone and Lord Salisbury have been examined by successive historians in considerable detail and almost every nuance of meaning has been drained from thorough examination of published and unpublished material. It is therefore possible to say with some degree of probability what either man may or may not have saidor done in a given situation. That is not the case with Sir Robert Anderson, who as far as Ripper revelations is concerned, has really only been assessed by Author Martin Fido, a professional Academic and specialist in the Victorian period who blessed with interest in and understanding of eccentric religious beliefs of Anderson and their influence on his character, and who has a general knowledge of the morals and mores of late Victorian society. His accessment of Anderson was made during the research for a book about the Ripper for the centenary of the crimes and led him to conclude that Anderson was one of the more reliable, if not the most reliable, of police commentators.”
...

The highlighted section above just about says it all.

Nothing like using your co-author to support your own arguments. It is also, of course, wrong. Several others have taken an in-depth look at Anderson, including accredited historians, and they disagree with the Begg/Fido assessment. As for his religious writings, many of which I own, some of the biggest hypocrites I have met are those who are excessively religious. We know that Fido devoted a chapter of his 1987 book to Anderson, and that contains errors.

However, I find Begg's statement that Anderson "has really only been assessed by author Martin Fido" rather insulting to other authors. As for Fido's conclusion that "Since neither Anderson nor Macnaghten was given to lying or boasting their joint testimony ought long ago to have been given the highest priority.", I leave the dispassionate reader to draw his own conclusions. And Begg is quoting Fido.

[Jeff Leahy]

BEGG “He also rejected the until then widely accepted theory that Anderson’s suspect was John Pizer, convincingly suggested in the 1970’s by author Donald Rumblow in his book The Complete Jack the Ripper, and concluded that Anderson’s suspect was ‘kosminski’ referred to by Sir Melville MacNaughten in a memorandum written in 1894.

Fido observed that bothmen provided corresponding detail- both appeared to refer to the suspect’s masterbation (it being a silly notion common in late Victorian period that masterbation led to madness), Anderson calling it ‘unnatural vices’ MacNaughten “solitary vices” and noted that both alluded to an identification, this Fido deducing in the case of MacNaughten from reference to Kosminski resembling a man seen by a city PC (a claim itself not without problems!) Fido concluded, ‘sinse neither Anderson nor Macnaughten was given to lying or boasting their joint testimony ought long ago to have been given the highest priority”

[Stewart P Evans]

Pontifications

...
Paul has suggested that to challenge Martin Fido we need to look at the reasoning behind his conclusion.
...
Pirate

Considering all the mistakes that Fido has made in the past, and Paul Begg acknowledges this, I would have thought that he would have been a bit more careful in accepting his pontifications.

[Jeff Leahy]

I’m not winding anybody up. I’m pointing out that Begg has claimed Anderson is a complex character. I’m not pertending Begg is all knowing as you seem to be claiming I am.

Paul has suggested that to challenge Martin Fido we need to look at the reasoning behind his conclusion.

I have been asked to expand on that statement, which Begg has already done in his Ripperologist article in some detail.

And will you please stop resorting to personal abuse. I have said none to you and it does nothing to further conversation about Martin Fido's position and conclusions.

Picking out another authors typo's and nitpicks is rather childish especially when there is a wider and serious question to be considered.

Pirate

[Stewart P Evans]

Idiot

....
EVANS: “ It is the reason why I fight shy of naming other authors, their books, and their mistakes in the reference books I have written. Indeed, we all make mistakes and the old saying that 'the book without a mistake hasn't been written' is probably true?”
So why do it indeed?

Yes, but it's the frequency and seriousness of those mistakes, and I don't think that I have some idiot on the boards championing me as the all-knowing, error-free, know it all. I have got some great stuff yet to post, you really are stupid to wind me up.

[Jeff Leahy]

BEGG “The likes of Gladstone and Lord Salisbury have been examined by successive historians in considerable detail and almost every nuance of meaning has been drained from thorough examination of published and unpublished material. It is therefore possible to say with some degree of probability what either man may or may not have saidor done in a given situation. That is not the case with Sir Robert Anderson, who as far as Ripper revelations is concerned, has really only been assessed by Author Martin Fido, a professional Academic and specialist in the Victorian period who blessed with interest in and understanding of eccentric religious beliefs of Anderson and their influence on his character, and who has a general knowledge of the morals and mores of late Victorian society. His accessment of Anderson was made during the research for a book about the Ripper for the centenary of the crimes and led him to conclude that Anderson was one of the more reliable, if not the most reliable, of police commentators.”

EVANS: “ It is the reason why I fight shy of naming other authors, their books, and their mistakes in the reference books I have written. Indeed, we all make mistakes and the old saying that 'the book without a mistake hasn't been written' is probably true?”

So why do it indeed?