New Ideas and New Research on the Diary

[rjpalmer]

Some two decades after publication of Harrison’s first book, Casebook: Jack the Ripper contributor Lydia Trivia unearthed examples of songs – mostly older than Maybrick’s more established works – where he alone had written both music and lyrics.
—ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY PRESS / SATURDAY AUGUST 30th 1913 - DEATH OF MR. MICHAEL MAYBRICK. His first song was “A Warrior Bold,” which remains one of the most popular of its class. He wrote it while lying ill in bed, and accepted 5s for it plus a royalty.)

Hi Ike,

No offense intended, but I'm afraid I have to challenge the information supplied by your first correspondent, especially his (or her) use of the word "songs" (plural).

I await further clarification on this point, because this appears to be a flaw of memory.

The contributor was not "Lydia Trivia" -- her name on this forum was simply Livia. (She went by 'Livia Trivia' on JTR Forums).

In both of her posts on the subject, she only identified one song with lyrics by Michael Maybrick---the same singular song mentioned by me and your other two correspondents: A Warrior Bold.


So where does 'songs' come from? What is the source for multiple songs with lyrics by Michael Maybrick? (And trust me, old boy, obituaries and Wikipedia entries aren't always reliable.)

The way I read it, this was...er....dare I say...a one-off by Stephen Adams while sick in bed.

Please note that in her post to JTR Forums (see below) Livia Trivia referred to 'Edwin Thomas' as a one-hit wonder. Which implies she couldn't find any other lyrics written by him if indeed her research was, as you say, "excellent." Nor does she insist Thomas was a pseudonym for 'Stephen Adams' but she might be implying it.

An open question, I'd say!!

RP

[Herlock Sholmes]

Lord, awesomely bad memory by one of us. Did I not acknowledge recently that your desperately unevidenced theory is at least theoretically possible? I’m sure I did but maybe I dreamed it.

While we’re on the subject of Spandau Ballet, I’ve often wondered if Barrett wasn’t a closet fan too - after all, did he not steal the following line for his literary masterpiece?

With a thrill in my head and a pill on my tongue …

Sorry Ike, when did I ask if it was theoretically possible for the Barretts to have written the diary? Why do people always want to answer different questions to the ones I've asked them?

My question, in a nutshell was "Why could the Barretts not have jointly created the diary?"

So there are two possible answers:

1. The Barretts could not have jointly created the diary because.....[state reason]

2. I know of no reason why the Barretts could not have created the diary (or, if you prefer: The Barretts could have jointly created the diary).

I'm really interested to see if you are prepared to answer my question directly, without ambiguity or caveat, without changing any of the wording, in a form that I could, if I so desired, quote you on.

Just to give you an example of how it's done. To the hypothetical question, "Why could James Maybrick not have created the diary?", my unambiguous answer is:

James Maybrick could not have created the diary because the expression "a one off instance" is a modern, 20th century expression, which didn't exist in the 1880s.

And you can quote me on that!

[John Wheat]

Sorry Ike, when did I ask if it was theoretically possible for the Barretts to have written the diary? Why do people always want to answer different questions to the ones I've asked them?

My question, in a nutshell was "Why could the Barretts not have jointly created the diary?"

So there are two possible answers:

1. The Barretts could not have jointly created the diary because.....[state reason]

2. I know of no reason why the Barretts could not have created the diary (or, if you prefer: The Barretts could have jointly created the diary).

I'm really interested to see if you are prepared to answer my question directly, without ambiguity or caveat, without changing any of the wording, in a form that I could, if I so desired, quote you on.

Just to give you an example of how it's done. To the hypothetical question, "Why could James Maybrick not have created the diary?", my unambiguous answer is:

James Maybrick could not have created the diary because the expression "a one off instance" is a modern, 20th century expression, which didn't exist in the 1880s.

And you can quote me on that!

I doubt you'll get a straight answer Herlock because there is no reason why the Barretts couldn't have created the diary jointly. In fact the smart money is on the Barretts having created the diary between them.

Cheers John

[Herlock Sholmes]

I doubt you'll get a straight answer Herlock because there is no reason why the Barretts couldn't have created the diary jointly. In fact the smart money is on the Barretts having created the diary between them.

Cheers John

I just don’t know why there’s such a resistance to the suggestion John. Someone forged it. Someone owned up to it.

[rjpalmer]

Second email:

In 1873, while ill in bed, he [Michael Maybrick] wrote the words and the music to his first big song, A Warrior Bold, and within a few years had earned well over a £1000 in royalties (Chris Jones citing the Edinburgh Evening News, 17th December 1877 as his source.)

Hi Ike,

It doesn't help us and I'm more than happy to drop the matter, but FYI you might ask your correspondent if a mistake has been made.

Out of curiosity I checked the source mentioned--the Edinburgh Evening News for 17 December 1877---and I'm not finding this anecdote.

All I'm finding is this:





As far as I can tell, the only accounts of Michael Maybrick having written the words to 'A Warrior Bold' date to 1913.

The bad news for you is that even if it can be shown than Mike Maybrick wrote enough lyrics to his songs to warrant the impression left by the diarist, this does not indicate obscure knowledge by the author, as the same thing was reported (rightly or wrongly) by Ryan (and, going from memory, either Christie or Morland).

Regards.

[Iconoclast]

I just don’t know why there’s such a resistance to the suggestion John. Someone forged it. Someone owned up to it.

I haven't ignored your bigger question - it requires some thought and I'm working (i.e., employed) right now (and Newcastle are live tonight); but I just wanted to quickly reply to this one because you are promoting a presupposition based upon your belief that 'one off instance' means 'one-off instance' and also that 'one-off instance' was not a concept anyone made in 1888 nor could make in 1888. You are attempting to use inductive reasoning from this premise but you cannot say for certain that the premise is correct so your strident conclusion is a logical fallacy.

You may be right about your conclusion but your certainty right now is not a fact, it is an opinion. You are welcome to have your own opinions but you are not welcome to have your own facts [thank you, Ricky Gervais]. You cannot state 'Someone forged it' and present it as a fact because the premise you are using to draw your conclusion is unproven. It may never be proven because the spoken record from 1888 is long gone and the written record from 1888 is largely gone.

Just please be careful with your opinions and try not to confuse them with agreed facts.

At least you presented a fact when you stated that 'Someone owned up to it'. Obviously, that's a fact which tells us absolutely nothing about what happened before 'someone owned up to it'.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I haven't ignored your bigger question - it requires some thought and I'm working (i.e., employed) right now (and Newcastle are live tonight); but I just wanted to quickly reply to this one because you are promoting a presupposition based upon your belief that 'one off instance' means 'one-off instance' and also that 'one-off instance' was not a concept anyone made in 1888 nor could make in 1888. You are attempting to use inductive reasoning from this premise but you cannot say for certain that the premise is correct so your strident conclusion is a logical fallacy.

You may be right about your conclusion but your certainty right now is not a fact, it is an opinion. You are welcome to have your own opinions but you are not welcome to have your own facts [thank you, Ricky Gervais]. You cannot state 'Someone forged it' and present it as a fact because the premise you are using to draw your conclusion is unproven. It may never be proven because the spoken record from 1888 is long gone and the written record from 1888 is largely gone.

Just please be careful with your opinions and try not to confuse them with agreed facts.

At least you presented a fact when you stated that 'Someone owned up to it'. Obviously, that's a fact which tells us absolutely nothing about what happened before 'someone owned up to it'.

Well diary discussion has just hit a new low. I've been criticised for "presupposing" that "'one off instance' means 'one-off instance'". Has anything crazier ever been written?

Ike, as I've already said but you ignored, the dictionary itself originally had an entry for "one off" not "one-off". The hyphen was (and remains) optional. They mean exactly the same thing, with or without a hyphen. There is no doubt about it.

How long ago did David come up with his ‘one off instance’ point Ike? I’m guessing at around 10 years? So 10 years of searching and not one point that has even come close to refuting it. When you originally asked for your ‘irrefutable proof’ did anyone realise that you had an unwritten caveat - that if a point was made then you would have unlimited time to refute it?