LeGrand conspiracy

[Fleetwood Mac]

FM

A very shrewd reading of the words, if I may say so, and very plausible.

My only reservation would be that people are sometimes casual (even ignorant) in their use of words and phrases - especially cliches - and thus I can conceive that he intended to infer a "pimp" even if that is not what the words actually say.

But thank you for the alternative rendering.

Phil

Phil:

I don't think it's an alternative reading. It is the reading.

'Wages of sin' is an expression as opposed to literal financial gain.

The equivalent would be someone saying: 'living off the fat of the land" and meaning living comfortably rather than eating fat off the land.

It's an idiom.

The other thing that doesn't tally with Le Grand is this from Balfour:

The man was believed by all who knew him, and who knew the criminal classes, to be the most likely man in all England to commit such atrocities.

Except the detective agencies and the like which hired him? Taking Balfour at his word, evidently these people were hiring someone who they believed to be Jack The Ripper to snare Jack The Ripper.

[Phil H]

I don't think it's an alternative reading. It is the reading.

I am sure you do think that, and you may well be right.

But experience tells me that while people ALWAYS (unless satirists or being deliberately silly) believe they are clear in what they say or write. I am sure the Goulston St graffitist did so - yet we cannot reach concensus on what he meant.

Put simply, we do not always use words that convey to others what we think they do. I think there is enough room for both interpretations in what Balfour wrote, though on balance I think you may have it right.

Phil

[Fleetwood Mac]

The other thing that suggests to me he is not talking about le Grand is the introduction to both men:

“Do you see that tall and villainous looking ruffian there?” a warder once said to me“Of course I do.

I was for some time brought into daily contact with a middle-aged and apparently respectable man

Regardless of any other details in the accounts of the two men under discussion, they would appear to be different men.

Villainous ruffian versus apparently respectable man?

You would have to do some serious mental acrobatics to arrive at the conclusion that these were the same men - regardless of what detectives, other prisoners and the like said and is relayed by Balfour in the main body of the two accounts.

He opens by describing men of contrasting appearance.

[mariab]

The other thing that doesn't tally with Le Grand is this from Balfour:
The man was believed by all who knew him, and who knew the criminal classes, to be the most likely man in all England to commit such atrocities.

Incidentally, there are a couple press reports which fit with what Balfour reports here (discovered by Marc Ripper, Mike Covell, and How Brown).

Except the detective agencies and the like which hired him? Taking Balfour at his word, evidently these people were hiring someone who they believed to be Jack The Ripper to snare Jack The Ripper.

What “detective agencies“? Pertaining to the WVC, it appears that Le Grand imposed himself. The circumstances of his being hired by George Lusk and his affiliation with Joseph Aarons are not yet researched comprehensively, while there is evidence that his criminal past was revealed to Lusk LATER than 1888. As for his own advertized detective agency in the Strand, there's no evidence yet to be found that it ever operated as a detective agency. Ever.

'Thriving on the wages of their sin' does not mean pimping. It does not mean financial gain in the literal sense. 'Wages of sin' is an English idiom meaning torment or eternal torment for one's actions. The expression 'wages of sin' is a religious one.

If “wages of their sin“ were to be understood in this traditional/religious sense, as “their metaphysical misery“, it doesn't make sense whatsoever that the alleged suspect discussed by Balfour “was thriving on the prostitutes metaphysical misery“ (sic). It's more plausible that Balfour is using a faulty metaphor here in a literal sense, suggesting, in a flowery fashion, that the individual in question was a pimp.

As for the quote about “a middle-aged and apparently respectable man“, this was written in a different time frame, years later than the first quote. There is the plausible possibility that Balfour was careful how to express himself in the interest of his own safety, after Le Grand was released from prison. Also: “apparently respectable man“ is NOT the same as “respectable man“. Might be even understood in the sense of “prematurely aged and weakened through years spent in prison“.

[Fleetwood Mac]

If “wages of their sin“ were to be understood in this traditional/religious sense, as “their metaphysical misery“, it doesn't make sense whatsoever that the alleged suspect discussed by Balfour “was thriving on the prostitutes metaphysical misery“ (sic). It's more plausible that Balfour is using a faulty metaphor here in a literal sense, suggesting, in a flowery fashion, that the individual in question was a pimp.

Maria,

The above is mental acrobatics in an attempt to suggest he was describing a pimp.

It would make perfect sense.

He is saying: "the man thrived on their predicament" (the wages of their sin being condemned to be at the mercy of people like the man in question).

I would like to point you to this Maria:

Divine retribution

In Victorian days the official line on sex was that it was solely for the purpose of producing children. It wasn't supposed to be fun. So, however tolerant the Victorians may have been in practice of men having sexual adventures, venereal disease was, in some quarters, regarded as God's punishment - the wages of sin.

It is from the link beneath:

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/victorians-uncovered/articles/the-wages-of-sin

Quite clearly, in Victorian times: wages of sin meant punishment for the sinner (not financial gain for the extortioner).

Google it: 'wages of sin' was a common Victorian expression, related to Victorian attitudes on sex and religion.

You will not find a reference to it meaning 'pimping' or financial gain. But you will find every reference to it being associated with another common English idiom: "reaping what you sow". And, tellingly the subject in these idioms is not Grainger or Le Grand; it is the prostitute, i.e. wages meaning her punishment as opposed to anyone's financial gain.

[Phil H]

Google it: 'wages of sin' was a common Victorian expression, related to Victorian attitudes on sex and religion.

But people can use well-known phrases, ironically, wittily, sarcastically... Shakespeare and his contemporaries did this a good deal. It is part of the marvel that is the English language.

There can be a "knowing" wink to the reader or interlocutor - aren't I being clever!

I could imagine someone saying, colloquially: "Ah, but the wages of sin is drink!!" or of a successful courtesan: "She did well out of her profession: for her the wages of sin were a country house and a carriage!"

You will not find a reference to it meaning 'pimping' or financial gain. But you will find every reference to it being associated with another common English idiom: "reaping what you sow".

Dictionary definitions, even literary quotes will not necessarily reveal how a phrase is used in common parlance, and while a Wildism might find its way into the record, those of lesser men might not. We simply cannot say and surely have to accept a degree of ambiguity?

Phil

[mariab]

Dictionary definitions, even literary quotes will not necessarily reveal how a phrase is used in common parlance {...}. We simply cannot say and surely have to accept a degree of ambiguity?
{...} I could imagine someone saying, colloquially {...} of a successful courtesan: "She did well out of her profession: for her the wages of sin were a country house and a carriage!"

Precisely, Phil.

Fleetwood Mac,
I'm not witholding assent about the standard significance of “reaping the wages of their sin“ in Victorian English. The problem is that this expression, used traditionally, doesn't make any sense whatsoever in Balfour's quote: What? The alleged suspect in question was supposed to be thriving in the fact that the prostitutes he frequented were affected by veneral diseases (as a “punishment for their sins“), as an active punter? Surely makes sense. :-)
Balfour's quote is to be understood in 2 ways:
- The suspect/punter in question was thriving in the prostitutes' state of misery, as a sadist.
- Or, taken literally: The suspect in question was a pimp, “reaping the wages of sin“, as a Victorian would call it.

[Fleetwood Mac]

as a Victorian would call it.

And, I suppose this is the issue.

I can find countless examples of 'wages of sin' meaning other than financial gain in Victorian times.

Can you find one example of it meaning financial gain?

The proof's in the pudding as they say!

What we have here is me showing you in what context 'wages of sin' was actually used by Victorians; whereas you are jumping through hoops to argue it means something contrary to what the evidence is showing you.

There's no use replying with more supposition and mental acrobatics.

Your challenge is to find evidence of Victorians using this phrase in a manner meaning financial gain.

Until you've done this then the conclusion must always be that I have provided evidence from Victorian times to support the meaning of 'wages of sin' - and there are countless examples all meaning punishment or retribution and not financial gain.

From there, it's up to you whether you ignore the evidence because it's not what you want to hear.

[mariab]

I don't need to repeat myself ad infinitum. See Phil H.'s post #171 and my post #172 again. The evidence boils down to the fact that the original significance of the Victorian expression in question does NOT make any sense whatsoever in Balfour's quote.

[lynn cates]

thriving

Hello Mac. But wouldn't "thriving" seem to indicate something like "doing well financially"?

Cheers.
LC

[mariab]

Just as a by the by, Lynn, can I email you about some research and ideas in about a week or so? I took a couple of weeks off (riding indoors for a few events, then staying with a friend by a lake), and I need a few more days off, then to take care of a deadline. I hope you're fine, and not too overworked.

[Phil H]

Your challenge is to find evidence of Victorians using this phrase in a manner meaning financial gain.

With respect, no it is NOT! If anything it is for you to demonstrate that it could ONLY mean what you believe it did.

I have given two examples of how I believe the phrase might have been used in a comedic, witty or ironic sense. If you are not comfortable with those, I am sorry - but they are entirely consistent with the wit and usage of the 1880s/90s.

Maria is quite right.

Phil

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hello Mac. But wouldn't "thriving" seem to indicate something like "doing well financially"?

Cheers.
LC

Lynn:

'Thriving' could mean whatever Balfour had in his mind.

But, let's be clear: the suggestion of pimping came about because it was believed that 'wages' meant financial gain. It is not the case.

So, once you accept that 'wages of sin' means punishment for one's actions then you are left guessing as to what Balfour had in mind in terms of what constitutes 'thriving'.

Now, guessing hardly constitutes proof - and I believe Tom's bottom line (as said by him on one post) was that the pimping/wages angle nailed Le Grand.

Once you accept that Balfour is talking about punishment for one's actions, then you could come up with over 100 guesses as to what Balfour meant by 'thriving'.

Making financial gain over a 100/1 shot.

By all means, if anyone wants to argue that 'wages of sin' means financial gain then do show that Victorians used the idiom to mean that - there are countless examples in google to show it meant otherwise.

Post that, then by all means estimate that 'thriving' meant pimping, but do please acknowledge that there are a boat load of other things that 'thriving' could mean in this context, thereby rendering pimiping, although not impossible, a wild stab in the dark.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Your challenge is to find evidence of Victorians using this phrase in a manner meaning financial gain.

With respect, no it is NOT! If anything it is for you to demonstrate that it could ONLY mean what you believe it did.

Phil:

As someone with a 1st degree in history, admittedly lapsed as I'm an accountant these days, I am fully aware that there is always room for a counter argument. Also, as someone who agrees with Neitzsche on 'good and evil' being a false dichotomy and with Sartre in that there are only choices/paths/consequences as opposed to values that remain constant and dictate right and wrong and with Hume when he says there is no such thing as an objective fact (the earth could turn the other way tomorrow; gravity could cease to exist etc); I hope it's clear that when I say 'the answer' I mean as close as you can get to 'the truth'.

Now, I have shown how this phrase was used by Victorians and its origins - the New Testament - and why it was used in Victorian times (religion and conservative attitudes to sex).

From there, I acknowledge that Balfour could have used wages to mean financial gain - there's always the chance. But, based on the evidence of this being an idiom and how it was actually used in Victorian times it is highly unlikely.

So, as it stands, I'll go with a 99% chance of this meaning punishment for one's sins - based on the above and earlier posts.

My point is this: if someone is hung up on pimping then they need to provide evidence of this phrase being used to mean pimping in order to move the % towards 50 and therefore engender a decent case for his/her argument.

The evidence is there for punishment for all to see with a quick google - is the evidence there to mean pimiping? That is the challenge!

[Fleetwood Mac]

Oh, and for all concerned:

As per the idiom: 'wages' means her 'reward' for her actions, not someone else's reward.

That is the whole point of the idiom.