Maybrick--a Problem in Logic

[Observer]

So when are you going to start, and set us all a good example, Observer?

Reasoning is all very well, but it can only be good, solid and responsible if it is based on solid ground, and a sound understanding of the subject matter, or it's just a pointless and time-wasting exercise.

Your observations concerning Mike's relationship with the Crashaw quote demonstrate such a fundamental and extraordinary lack of understanding of everything that has ever been said or written about it, that I can only conclude you have either not read up on this subject at all, or your ability to absorb any of it is on a par with your ability to live up to your username.

Love,

Caz
X

Oh a play on my username, I've never heard that one before, what a wit.

[Observer]

Let me just stop you there, R.J. I'm sure Ike will fill in some more gaps in your understanding, and Observer's knowledge, but for now, I'll just ask you how you know it is an 'invention' on Ike's part that Mike and Anne were asked to help find where the quote came from?

My own understanding is that it was Shirley who first suggested to Mike that he could do something useful, following his first unsupported forgery claim in June 1994, and try to find the quote in the library. It wasn't Mike who identified it as a quote, or even suggested it could be one. He was simply packed off to look for it. But instead of turning round to Shirley and saying: "Even better than that! I can tell you right now where it comes from, how I found it and why I put it in the diary, and I'm getting straight on the blower to tell that bastard Feldman too", he went off like a good boy and finally came up with the goods for Shirley, giving her the information she needed to confirm with the library that they had the volume Mike described to her. No wonder he called Feldy, to taunt him with his 'inside' knowledge!

It might be useful at this point if I mention - for only about the umpteenth time - that Mike would not have found a Crashaw line beginning 'Tis love... in his Sphere book, but he would if he had consulted Crashaw's Complete Works, published in 1858.

The devil is in the detail, as they say.

Love,

Caz
X

So it was Shirley Harrison who picked up on the Crawshaw poem, clever woman, I wonder what prompted her to single it out from the other little dittys to be found in the Diary? Tell me, does Shirley Harrison mention in any of the books on the subject that it was she who instructed Barrett to investigate the Crawshaw poem? Or is that inside information? Also, are you saying that OCIOD does not appear in the Sphere book? You do admit that Barrett, "like a good boy" actually found the poem in a book in Liverpool Central Library, presumably it was the complete works. So how did he with only two lines to work with, and not knowing the poet's name, or even which time period the poem was written in, find the volume in question?

[rjpalmer]

Hi Observer - Shirley Harrison did claim in her revised edition of the Diary of Jack the Ripper (Blake), that she had asked Mike to find the ‘O Costly’’ quote in the Central Library (see excerpt below).

The thing is, I asked Harrison about this, when she used to contribute to the boards, and she didn’t seem to have a clear recollection of the chronology of events. Could she be mistaken?

The reason I ask, is that there is no mention of this highly relevant claim in Skinner & Morris’s account of Mike’s Crashaw discovery on pages 142-145 of Ripper Diary, even though it is discussed at length and Harrison is mentioned. Why would such an important detail be left out?

Indeed, Ripper Diary tells us:

“On 3 October 1994 Keith Skinner learnt for the first time of Barrett’s discovery when he received an answerphone message from Shirley Harrison. ‘Mike seems to have found “Oh costly intercourse of death” –quite by chance. It is in the Sphere Companion to English Literature Vol 6, MB thinks—did not even make a note of it!’ Three days later, on 6 October, came confirmation of the quotation, when the library faxed Harrison the relevant pages from the anthology…” (p 143).

“quite by chance” are Harrison’s own words…but my emphasis.

If Shirley had sent Mike to the library, why did she say Mike’s discovery was “quite by chance”? How could it have been “quite by chance” if Mike had been “badgering the librarians” to help him find the quote (See below)?

It sounds to me more like Barrett called Shirley up out of the blue, just as he had done with Feldman on 30 September. But perhaps Keith or someone can clarify this seeming contradiction. It seems odd to me that Harrison would have claimed this discovery was by "chance" if it had been a specific task given to Barrett.

Is it possible that Barrett had notified Harrison about finding the quote (same day as Feldy, 30 Sept) and then SHE contacted the Liverpool Library for confirmation and later confused the events? I don’t know, but there is something amiss with the two accounts. They don’t entirely add up.
Further, if Mike “badgered” the librarians, and if Harrison herself was in contact with the library on Oct 3-6th, what do we make of the failure of Anne Graham and Carol Emmas to find the quote that same week when Feldman sent them to check it out? Wouldn’t the librarians say something like, “what ho, ladies, you are the third person to ask about that quote this week! We know now EXACTLY where to find it!”

Instead, they came back empty-handed. It's difficult for me to believe Barrett ever set foot in that library. From what we read in Feldman, this was at the depths of his struggle with alcohol.



In a further excerpt, Ripper diary tells us that Barrett told Harrison that he had taken it upon himself to spend an entire WEEK in the Central Liverpool Library in order to find the quote, having become upset by people describing him as an alcoholic. No mention of Harrison's involvement in this scheme (p. 144).

[caz]

Oh a play on my username, I've never heard that one before, what a wit.

I'm sorry, Observer, but you did rather ask for it. A less observant observer would be hard to find around here.

[caz]

So it was Shirley Harrison who picked up on the Crawshaw poem, clever woman, I wonder what prompted her to single it out from the other little dittys to be found in the Diary? Tell me, does Shirley Harrison mention in any of the books on the subject that it was she who instructed Barrett to investigate the Crawshaw poem? Or is that inside information? Also, are you saying that OCIOD does not appear in the Sphere book? You do admit that Barrett, "like a good boy" actually found the poem in a book in Liverpool Central Library, presumably it was the complete works. So how did he with only two lines to work with, and not knowing the poet's name, or even which time period the poem was written in, find the volume in question?

1. It's Crashaw. CRASHAW. Observe the spelling for next time.

2. The quote does appear in the Sphere book and I didn't say otherwise. Read my post again and observe what I actually wrote.

3. No, you presumed too much. It wasn't 'the complete works'. That was my point. It wasn't even the complete poem, just a few lines - taken from the middle of the poem, and with little context to provide inspiration to anyone who hadn't read the whole poem.

To really understand any of this, you will need a) a copy of the Sphere book, b) a copy of CRASHAW'S Complete Works, and c) the facsimile of the Maybrick diary. Then you will be able to see precisely how the two quoted lines appear in each, and in what context.

When you have read up on it, you can come back and explain how Mike Barrett managed to place CRASHAW'S lines about intercourse and death [which IRRC, Melvin Harris once suggested Mike naively translated as 'sex and murder', thinking that sounded appropriate for Jack the Ripper], not at some random point in the diary, but at THE most apposite point in 'Sir Jim's' thought processes, for him to be calling that poem to mind as he writes. But that would have been impossible for anyone simply taking the lines from the Sphere book, because the rest of the poem is not there.

You can then explain why Mike chose to write the six poetic lines towards the end of the diary, which all begin 'Tis love...'. You won't find CRASHAW beginning a line that way in the Sphere book, but there are at least two such lines to be found in CRASHAW'S Complete Works.

Two neat coincidences for the price of one, which have to be considered alongside Mike's contradictory claims regarding how and when he first found the quote.

Love,

Caz
X

[Observer]

1. It's Crashaw. CRASHAW. Observe the spelling for next time.

No excuse I'll admit but there is a large chain of butcher's shops in the North by the name of Crawshaws, names stick in the mind.

2. The quote does appear in the Sphere book and I didn't say otherwise. Read my post again and observe what I actually wrote.

3. No, you presumed too much. It wasn't 'the complete works'. That was my point. It wasn't even the complete poem, just a few lines - taken from the middle of the poem, and with little context to provide inspiration to anyone who hadn't read the whole poem.

To really understand any of this, you will need a) a copy of the Sphere book, b) a copy of CRASHAW'S Complete Works, and c) the facsimile of the Maybrick diary. Then you will be able to see precisely how the two quoted lines appear in each, and in what context.

When you have read up on it, you can come back and explain how Mike Barrett managed to place CRASHAW'S lines about intercourse and death [which IRRC, Melvin Harris once suggested Mike naively translated as 'sex and murder', thinking that sounded appropriate for Jack the Ripper], not at some random point in the diary, but at THE most apposite point in 'Sir Jim's' thought processes, for him to be calling that poem to mind as he writes. But that would have been impossible for anyone simply taking the lines from the Sphere book, because the rest of the poem is not there.

So you believe that the author of the Diary had the full version of the poem to hand? I've had a look at CRASHAW'S (better?) poem "Santa Maria Dolorum", are you referring to the line in the poem which goes.

"Her eyes bleed tears, his wounds weep blood"

If so, or if indeed you refer to another section of the poem, why then did the author of the Diary not include the whole section of the poem which dealt with his "thought processes", it would have made more sense, why did he include only the lines OCIOD? The Simple answer to me is that Barrett only had the Sphere book to work from, why he stuck OCIOD where he did is anyone's guess. Mr Harris was on the right track with his suggestion, I'd say. By the way, Mike Barrett stated that his wife added an H to make it Oh Costly, instead of O Costly, whoever penned the Diary, and I believe it was Barrett with the help of others, also missed putting on S on the end of Death

You can then explain why Mike chose to write the six poetic lines towards the end of the diary, which all begin 'Tis love...'. You won't find CRASHAW beginning a line that way in the Sphere book, but there are at least two such lines to be found in CRASHAW'S Complete Works.

Why have you not included them then? Let's see them first, and then I'll comment , for I can't find a CRASHAW verse which begins

"Tis Love That Spurned me"

[Yabs]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but during the Victorian era wouldn’t Maybrick, or anyone else for that matter, be very lucky to have a copy of Crashaws complete works in order to make the reference?
only 156 copies were printed for private circulation in 1872-73
It wasn’t printed again until 1927.

I’ve searched for the phrase on the newspapers archives and there’s no mention of anyone else quoting it.
Would Maybrick have been aware of it?

[Observer]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but during the Victorian era wouldn’t Maybrick, or anyone else for that matter, be very lucky to have a copy of Crashaws complete works in order to make the reference?
only 156 copies were printed for private circulation in 1872-73
It wasn’t printed again until 1927.

I’ve searched for the phrase on the newspapers archives and there’s no mention of anyone else quoting it.
Would Maybrick have been aware of it?

Very difficult I'd say Yabs. But I'll bet the Barrett bashers will have a **** eyed answer. Of course Maybrick might of had a budding Mike Barrett to hand, not only did he find the quote OCIOD in a crack at Liverpool Central Library, but within two days of that he'd hunted down a copy of the Sphere book in which it was contained ! Not bad going for a shambolic buffoon.

Also look at it in a realistic way. I believe the Diary began life as a novel, it's just the sort of thing a budding author would do for dramatic effect, that is to include poetry into the novel. This courtesy of Mr Palmer, from Shirley Harrison's book

"But Micheal Barrett is no fool, like Winnie the Pooh his spelling is wobbly, in the extreme but he has a taste for quoting Latin phrases culled from a classical dictionary and a knack for collecting unexpected snippets from the library"

Sound familiar?

[Graham]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but during the Victorian era wouldn’t Maybrick, or anyone else for that matter, be very lucky to have a copy of Crashaws complete works in order to make the reference?
only 156 copies were printed for private circulation in 1872-73
It wasn’t printed again until 1927.

Hm, according to Mr R J Goulden of the British Library, who Shirley Harrison saw, "Several editions of Crashaw's poetry were in fact published between 1857 and 1887: a library edition of the poets in 1857, the works of Crashaw by John Russell Smith in 1858, a privately printed edition in 1872-73, the general Cassell's library edition of British poets in 1881, and another private edition in 1887". A few more, I'd say, that the mere 156 copies of 1872-73. Page 283 of Shirley Harrison's book, paperback edition, if you're interested.

And on the subject of Mrs Harrison's book, on what page do I find But Micheal (sic) Barrett is no fool, like Winnie the Pooh his spelling is wobbly, in the extreme but he has a taste for quoting Latin phrases culled from a classical dictionary and a knack for collecting unexpected snippets from the library? Ta.

Graham

[Observer]

And on the subject of Mrs Harrison's book, on what page do I find But Micheal (sic) Barrett is no fool, like Winnie the Pooh his spelling is wobbly, in the extreme but he has a taste for quoting Latin phrases culled from a classical dictionary and a knack for collecting unexpected snippets from the library? Ta.

Graham

Post #378 this thread

[Observer]

Hm, according to Mr R J Goulden of the British Library, who Shirley Harrison saw, "Several editions of Crashaw's poetry were in fact published between 1857 and 1887: a library edition of the poets in 1857, the works of Crashaw by John Russell Smith in 1858, a privately printed edition in 1872-73, the general Cassell's library edition of British poets in 1881, and another private edition in 1887". A few more, I'd say, that the mere 156 copies of 1872-73. Page 283 of Shirley Harrison's book, paperback edition, if you're interested.

Graham[/I]

By the way it's obvious that "Santa Maria Dolorum", would be included in The complete works of Richard CRASHAW. But can you tell me, out of all the editions you've listed above how many of them contain the poem "Santa Maria Dolorum"?

[Iconoclast]

By the way it's obvious that "Santa Maria Dolorum", would be included in The complete works of Richard CRASHAW. But can you tell me, out of all the editions you've listed above how many of them contain the poem "Santa Maria Dolorum"?

Could you just plain stop spreading misinformation about the Maybrick case?

If you had actually arsed yourself to read all of the seminal texts, you'd have had the answers to your vainglorious questions before you'd foolishly posted them.

It is very likely that Crashaw's works would have been in the Maybrick household whilst James was growing up. I don't recall the exact source of this but it is an argument that is developed in one of those key texts. He need only have remembered the line to have used it (and got it both wrong and truncated). Barrett did extremely well to locate it in the Sphere book of Victorian Literature, but no more than that - he put in the hard yards and he got his result. No biggie.

If you're attempting to sway opinion with your postings, a tiny degree of accuracy would be really helpful.

[Graham]

Not for one moment wishing to impugn Shirley Harrison's reliability, but there are several posters to these boards who knew, or at least on occasion met, Michael Barrett; I would like to know if any or all of them ever heard him 'quoting Latin phrases' at the drop of a hat.

Graham

[Observer]

Could you just plain stop spreading misinformation about the Maybrick case?

If you had actually arsed yourself to read all of the seminal texts, you'd have had the answers to your vainglorious questions before you'd foolishly posted them.

It is very likely that Crashaw's works would have been in the Maybrick household whilst James was growing up. I don't recall the exact source of this but it is an argument that is developed in one of those key texts. He need only have remembered the line to have used it (and got it both wrong and truncated). Barrett did extremely well to locate it in the Sphere book of Victorian Literature, but no more than that - he put in the hard yards and he got his result. No biggie.

If you're attempting to sway opinion with your postings, a tiny degree of accuracy would be really helpful.

I'll post my opinions as I see fit. With regard to swaying opinions with any degree of accuracy, I'd put your own house in order first.

Tell me why would it be that the Maybrick household would have had copies of Crashaw's work, as a matter of course? That's pure speculation. Also read my post above. Out of all the limited number of books available in which Crashaw's works are included, how many of them featured "Santa Maria Dolorum"? The poem might not have been included in all of them. This cuts the odds down dramatically if we are to believe that Maybrick was acquainted with the poem. As I said it's impossible to determine whether Crashaw was a favorite of the Maybricks. To say that it's "very likely that the works would have been in the Maybrick household" is grossly misleading to the good readers who visit this thread.

[Observer]

Not for one moment wishing to impugn Shirley Harrison's reliability,

You've just done it