Maybrick--a Problem in Logic

[Observer]

Don't bother reading my post. Just reply with your usual ill-thought out rant and assume it's 'on point'.

It's not, by the way.

They don't like it up em you know.

[Observer]

1) Pick up large book with 'Victorian Literature' on the spine.
2) Turn each page until you get to the end (remember to read each page).
3) Stop if you find the relevant quotation.
4) Put book back on shelf.
5) Go home.
6) Tell someone you've found it.

I've got five monkeys on the shore at Hartlepool texting me as I type volunteering for the role.

Hang them.

So Barrett didn't do extremely well in finding the quote?

Remember you've attributed Barrett with the intelligence of a three toed sloth.

[Observer]

No I haven't. I simply asked anyone who reads this and who knew Barrett personally if they had ever heard him quote a Latin phrase.

And if none of them have does that make Shirley Harrison's opinion unreliable?

Know what? The more I read your posts, the more I consider that all you are basically doing is simple contradiction, no more, no less.

Graham

Good for you. Don't read them then.

[Iconoclast]

Put in the hard yards? Oh your admitting now that he was capable of serious research. Listen, considering the level of intelligence you constantly harbour Mike Barrett with, it's a big biggie that he was able to find OCIOD in Liverpool Central Library. According to you he got lost as he turned at the bottom of his street.

1) Pick up large book with 'Victorian Literature' on the spine.
2) Turn each page until you get to the end (remember to read each page).
3) Stop if you find the relevant quotation.
4) Put book back on shelf.
5) Go home.
6) Tell someone you've found it.

I've got five monkeys on the shore at Hartlepool texting me as I type volunteering for the role.

[Iconoclast]

No I haven't. I simply asked anyone who reads this and who knew Barrett personally if they had ever heard him quote a Latin phrase.

Know what? The more I read your posts, the more I consider that all you are basically doing is simple contradiction, no more, no less.

Graham

He's the very definition of wind-up merchant.

[Iconoclast]

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.

Don't bother reading my post. Just reply with your usual ill-thought out rant and assume it's 'on point'.

It's not, by the way.

[Observer]

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.

Put in the hard yards? Oh you're admitting now that he was capable of serious research, Shirley Harrison and her researchers couldn't find it.

Listen, considering the level of intelligence you constantly harbour Mike Barrett with, it's a big biggie that he was able to find OCIOD in Liverpool Central Library. According to you he got lost as he turned at the bottom of his street.

So you admit, Barrett put the hard yards in, did extremely well, and managed to find the Quote from Crashaw's "Santa Maria Dolorum". He's got the information for Shirley Harrison, presumably he's taken note of it, written it down. Why then within two days, did he have to put himself through the bother of tracking down, (and paying for to boot) a copy of that self same book he had access to in Liverpool Central Library?

[Graham]

You've just done it

No I haven't. I simply asked anyone who reads this and who knew Barrett personally if they had ever heard him quote a Latin phrase.

Know what? The more I read your posts, the more I consider that all you are basically doing is simple contradiction, no more, no less.

Graham

[Observer]

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

You've just done it

[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.

[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

[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.

[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"?

[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

[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