Diary to Ripper letter handwriting comparison

[Stephen Thomas]

"Eight little whores with no hope of heaven"

This is an oil & water type problem:the poem is a 20th Century work. It cannot exist in a 19th Century diary.

Why not exactly?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Stephen,

I believe it's known as an anachronism.

Regards,

Simon

[Stephen Thomas]

I believe it's known as an anachronism.

Hi Simon

I had one of those once and it was rather painful.

[Bridewell]

Anachronism

Hi Stephen,

I believe it's known as an anachronism.

Regards,

Simon

And, if BTCG is right, a diary-killer presumably. BTCG, how sure are you that the poem does not pre-date the 20th century?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Stephen,

Those herniated anachronisms can be a real bugger.

Regards,

Simon

[Stephen Thomas]

Those herniated anachronisms can be a real bugger.

Hi Simon

I'm alright now. Well sort of, thanks to the truss.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Stephen,

Thank you for your support.

I shall wear it always.

Regards,

Simon

[Stephen Thomas]

Old School

Thank you for your support.

I shall wear it always.

Them old ones are the best, innit Simon.

[Soothsayer]

Hi Stephen,

I believe it's known as an anachronism.

Regards,

Simon

Your anachronism is 20 years too late to blow anything out of any water.

And it's only an anachronism if it appears at a time when it could not have existed.

Are we saying that - whatever the truth of the rhyme quoted in the 1950s - that no rhymes of a similar ilk ever appeared beforehand? Or - to be precise - before the turn of the 20th century?

If we are saying that, would it be vaguely helpful if we explained why that was known categorically to be the case?

I shan't be holding my breath, lads.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Soothy,

The whole thing about anachronisms is that they always arrive late.

And you have finally arrived at the correct definition of an anachronism.

Just so you don't unnecessarily suffocate, what exactly is it about which you're not holding your breath?

Regards,

Simon

[Soothsayer]

Hi Soothy,

The whole thing about anachronisms is that they always arrive late.

And you have finally arrived at the correct definition of an anachronism.

Just so you don't unnecessarily suffocate, what exactly is it about which you're not holding your breath?

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

The questions I posed in my post.

Often, with questions, you find that the person posing the question is looking for an answer from someone.

You'll catch on, I'm sure.

PS Good news that you knew what an anachronism was, though!

[Stephen Thomas]

Good news that you knew what an anachronism was

Yes, but what is the supposed anachronism in the poem?

[Soothsayer]

Yes, but what is the supposed anachronism in the poem?

Hi Stephen,

In a forlorn bid to show knowledge and insight (when everyone knows I've got it all), one of the Naysayers (I forget which) cited the Donald McCormick rhyme quoted in his 1959 'Identify of Jack the Ripper' (didn't quite do what it said on the tin, but let's move on). I'm unsure of the context (as I haven't read the book) but he quoted the 'Eight little whores' rhyme.

This rhyme is mirrored in the Maybrick journal - 'One dirty whore was looking for some gain. Another dirty whore was lookng for the same'.

The Naysayers have had a couple of goes with these lines at attempting to demonstrate the lie of the journal.

Version 1: McCormick's source was not Jack the Ripper (via the interested doctor whose notes McCormick claimed to have) and indeed McCormick simply made the rhyme up, so linking Maybrick's rhyme with McCormick's (as the 'hoaxers' are thus said to have done) simply demonstrates the forgery. [I haven't done this version justice, but that's all I can recall right now.]

Version 2: The journal's use of the rhyme is in the first place anachronistic as apparently this sort of counting rhyme goes back only to the 20th century (according to the Naysayer who is Captain Nayname right now as I can't recall who it was).

Therefore, my point to Woody Woodpecker and his other Naysquawking flock is simply that in stating that Version 2 is true, it would be refreshing if they bothered to state why it is categorically true. That is, where lies the evidence which shows that a counting rhyme of this sort did not exist in 1888/89.

I'm not doubting that such a fact would be self-evidently the death knell of the jounal. I merely ask that the death knell carries a little bit of evidence and that the doctor who first turns up at the scene of every new thing which finally nails the journal as a hoax does not simply turn to the brilliant-if-slightly-maverick-but-very-handsome detective next to him and say "Well, the body's not moving so that's good enough for me. Box it up.".

Stick w'me, kidda - you can join our gang if you want?

[Soothsayer]

"Eight little whores with no hope of heaven"
This is an oil & water type problem:the poem is a 20th Century work. It cannot exist in a 19th Century diary.

ONE MAN WENT TO MOW ...

A Post in Recognition of the Achievements of the Chelsea Footballing Emporium of Chelsea, London, England, Great Britain, and the United Kingdom Thereof (and Anywhere Else We've Stolen Over the Long Years) ...

Counting songs were certainly about at the time of Jack the Lad, certainly if you believe Wiki:

A playground song is a song sung by children, usually on a playground or other children's gathering place. Most such songs are traditional in nature and are passed, with constantly evolving regional variations, down the generations. They have been studied for over a century, with H.C Bolton publishing a paper on "The counting out rhymes of children" in New York in 1888. [How very timely of you, sir!]

Okay - so the real anachronism (now that I've bothered myself to look back through the thread) lies in the origin of the 'Eight little whores' theme being 20th century, and the 'hoaxer' using it in a journal supposedly written in 1888/89.

So it is that which we therefore require some evidence for. In the journal, the much-maligned Maybrick is said to have written 'One dirty whore was looking ...' (etc.). This does mirror the 'Eight little whores' line of 1959, or whenever (but obviously not 1900 or before according to Captain Nayname). Is there any evidence that a counting rhyme of this nature existed pre-1900? This is obviously critical and requires really solid background analysis, so please bear with as this could take me some time ...

Tick, tick, tick, and a click, click, click ...

Oh dear, this is looking ominous. Seven and a half seconds of intensive research on Wiki by your fearless author has thrown up this little gem:

The original piece, then called "Ten Little Injuns", was written by songwriter Septimus Winner in 1868 for a minstrel show and was much more elaborate:
Ten little Injuns standin' in a line
One toddled home and then there were nine.

That wasn't what we were expecting.

As they are saying quite a bit in Munich right now ...

"... went to mow a meadow!"

[Livia]

Furthermore, Soothy...

The Twelve Days of Christmas: probably French in origin,
first appeared in England in about 1780.

One, two buckle my shoe: first published in 1805.



Might as well debunk this one too:

Michael Maybrick, at the start of his career, did write
his own lyrics. From his obituary:


"...Speaking at the Mayoral banquet at Ryde in 1911, when relinquishing the duties of Mayor, Mr. Maybrick said...

When he wrote his first song, 'A Warrior Bold', he was living in chambers. He had a bad cold and was unable to sing at Wolverhampton, where he had an engagement. While in bed he wrote the words and music of that song and took it to Mr. Arthur Chappell, of Chappell and Co. When the latter wanted to know what it was like he sang it to him. He said he would take five guineas for it, but Mr. Chappell said 'What! For an unknown composer?' It ended in his selling his first song for 5s. But there was a royalty attached, and that had gone a long way beyond four figures. Some time after he wrote 'Nancy Lee', he thought in 1878. That was also written when he was in bed, with a bad cold..."

(ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY PRESS. Saturday August 30th 1913.)


Liv