Seaside Home?

[Robert]

Just a quick question unrelated to the authenticity business : did Swanson ever employ abbreviations? For example, a policeman who often wrote the word "suspect" might take to writing it as "sus." I make a lot of notes myself and if I had to write Lynn's note above "in order to" would be written "ut" (the Latin for 'in order to'). But my notes are often illegible, and Swanson was much wiser in writing his notes fully, slowly and legibly.

[lynn cates]

legibility

Hello Robert. That's a good question. Most of my notes are indecipherable to others and full of quips and abbreviations.

The last 4 words in the "Marginalia" look almost like, "Hmm, wonder who will read this some day? Guess I'd better expatiate for their sakes."

Cheers.
LC

[robhouse]

A few things are clear. The marginalia were written at 2 different sittings, as indicated by the different pencils. This first being the paragraph at the bottom of the page, and the second jottings consisting of the underlinings, the entry in the left margin, and the endpaper, all done in one sitting. This second sitting commenced with the scribblings on page 138, in which Swanson commented on, or clarified some of the things Anderson said, then "continued" on the endpaper.

This is the reason for the apparently illogical sequence of expression. He starts with a response to Anderson, then continues with a pretty much chronological sequence of events, then adds the suspect's name at the end.... in the following form:

"This was because... and after that happened.. then this happened... Kozminski was the suspect."

I do not see that there is anything strange in this at all. Your Tchaikovski example is not a good comparison. Nor is there any noted stylistic difference (or difference in pencil) in the handwriting of this last sentence at all, and none was remarked on at all in the handwriting expert's analysis. But you people who want to believe the marginalia are fake seem to be willing to convince yourselves of anything you like.

RH

[PaulB]

Hello Jeff. Thanks.

Yes. I have an extensive library and most of my books are heavily annotated. In them, I might find something like:

"At this point, in order to achieve epistemic certainty, he needs to engage in hyperbolical doubt. If he can find one thing beyond doubt, he has gained his point."

What will NOT be found is:

"At this point, in order to achieve epistemic certainty, he needs to engage in hyperbolical doubt. If he can find one thing beyond doubt, he has gained his point. Descartes was the philosopher."

Cheers.
LC

No, you wouldn't write that, but is it customary to write that way about a known and identified philosopher? I'd hazard that it was customary to refer to somebody thought to have committed a crime but to be unconvicted of it as a suspect. All Swanson did was to follow Anderson's lead of referring to that man as "the suspect". He then wrote an identifier, maybe even as an afterthought.

[The Good Michael]

"At this point, in order to achieve epistemic certainty, he needs to engage in hyperbolical doubt. If he can find one thing beyond doubt, he has gained his point. Descartes was the philosopher."

Lynn, Descartes would have been the known quantity. Kosminski seems like a reasonable addition to me, if not the correct one. It almost sounds like an 'I know something you don't' addition and is therefore a bit uncomfortable.

Mike

[PaulB]

A few things are clear. The marginalia were written at 2 different sittings, as indicated by the different pencils. This first being the paragraph at the bottom of the page, and the second jottings consisting of the underlinings, the entry in the left margin, and the endpaper, all done in one sitting. This second sitting commenced with the scribblings on page 138, in which Swanson commented on, or clarified some of the things Anderson said, then "continued" on the endpaper.

This is the reason for the apparently illogical sequence of expression. He starts with a response to Anderson, then continues with a pretty much chronological sequence of events, then adds the suspect's name at the end.... in the following form:

"This was because... and after that happened.. then this happened... Kozminski was the suspect."

I do not see that there is anything strange in this at all. Your Tchaikovski example is not a good comparison. Nor is there any noted stylistic difference (or difference in pencil) in the handwriting of this last sentence at all, and none was remarked on at all in the handwriting expert's analysis. But you people who want to believe the marginalia are fake seem to be willing to convince yourselves of anything you like.

RH

Yes, Rob, it's about time one made it abundantly clear that whilst one sadly feels the need to add all sorts of caveats and cautions, such as saying "in the current state of our knowledge there is absolutely no reason to suppose that the marginalia is a fake", the reality is that it is demonstrably genuine throughout: two handwriting analyses have reached that conclusion, whatever deficiencies there may have been with the first, and otherwise the document passed all the criteria whereby authenticity is generally judged, and to impute the reputation of Jim Swanson or any member of the Swanson family without reason is a gross and irresponsible decent into conspiracy theory, or maybe an uncaring attempt to grab some limelight. I wasn't aware that lynn was an "it's a fake" advocate, however.

[Fisherman]

Mike:

"Descartes would have been the known quantity."

You DO know, I suppose, gentlemen, that we took Descartes to Sweden where he froze to death in a few month´s time? Pneumonia was the given cause to which he succumbed.

That´s how we Swedes deal with things like this!

The best,
Fisherman

[Robert]

I thought, therefore I was.

[Fisherman]

Sort of, yes, Robert!

Fisherman

[lynn cates]

marginal case

Hello Rob.

"The marginalia were written at 2 different sittings"

Clearly.

It would read better if, instead of "suspect" early on, it had read "Kosminski" early on.

"Nor is there any noted stylistic difference (or difference in pencil) . . ."

Stylistic difference? Not acquainted with Swanson's style. Pencil? That was not my argument. You have me confused with another theorist. I note only the feel of interpolation.

"But you people who want to believe the marginalia are fake seem to be willing to convince yourselves of anything you like."

I have no wish to believe one way or the other. My doxastic states follow the evidence.

Still wish Stanley were the culprit. He wasn't.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

making sense

Hello Mr. Begg. Thanks.

"I'd hazard that it was customary to refer to somebody thought to have committed a crime but to be unconvicted of it as a suspect. All Swanson did was to follow Anderson's lead of referring to that man as "the suspect". He then wrote an identifier, maybe even as an afterthought."

So, it sounds like there was a story extant, possibly original with Sir Robert and concerning Kosminski, and Swanson was trying to make sense of it?

I could live with that. I think many of us are still trying to make sense of it and we might annotate in precisely that way.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

audience

Hello Michael. Thanks.

"It almost sounds like an 'I know something you don't' addition and is therefore a bit uncomfortable."

OK. But I suppose it was intended for an audience then?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

data point

Hello Mr. Begg. Thanks.

"to impugn the reputation of Jim Swanson or any member of the Swanson family without reason is a gross and irresponsible decent into conspiracy theory, or maybe an uncaring attempt to grab some limelight. I wasn't aware that lynn was an "it's a fake" advocate, however."

No, you are correct. I impugn NO ONE. I merely add another data point to the list which has "Huh?" marked over it.

Cheers.
LC

[DVV]

Forged by a bizarre writer, that is it ?

[lynn cates]

cause of death

Hello Christer.

"You DO know, I suppose, gentlemen, that we took Descartes to Sweden where he froze to death in a few month´s time? Pneumonia was the given cause to which he succumbed."

Ah, but that's not the joke we learned in graduate school and which I frequently rehearse to my classes. (This is an object lesson on "spin" by the way.)

"In the last year of his life, Descartes was confronted by a Swedish teenager. She said, 'Rene, I want you in the bedroom every morning.' He was. And a year later he was found dead."

All true, but the Swedish teenager was the Queen, she wanted him for philosophical tutoring, it was done in the bedroom on account of his weak constitution, and death was caused by--as you point out--pneumonia.

Cheers.
LC