"A Chance Meeting In Paris"

[Howard Brown]

One of the age old canards provided by our favorite prevaricatin' and potion makin' former suspect D'Onston....is the one where he claims to have met Bulwer Lyttons' son in Paris in 1859....a meeting that Melvin Harris described as "a chance meeting".

Well...the odds are that this never occured. For one thing,there is NO evidence which demonstrates D'Onston was ever on the Continent.

The other is that, as found easily on Wikipedia, that Edward Lytton... also known by the nom de plume, Owen Meredith, was not assigned to Paris in that year.

He was in Copenhagen, St.Petersburg and Vienna.

Not Paris

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bulwer-Lytton,_1st_Earl_of_Lytton

Ho hum. I have to admit that this information slipped under my radar.

Thanks to Paul Begg and Robert Linford.

[Mayerling]

Hi Howard,

Long time no speak. Hope you are well.

Actually the paucity of detail ruins what otherwise is a good point. We don't know the date of the so-called meeting (at least yours truly doesn't). Did Harris ever locate it? The reason I ask is that it is conceivable (if it was a "chance meeting" that D'Onston and the young Robert Bulwer-Lytton met in a railway car or station or in a restaurant or hotel or in a store or salon, and Robert could have been on a small vacation or doing some diplomatic business in Paris that was connected to the other cities he was in. We would need to know 1) the date of this meeting, and 2) what was the exact calander of Robert Bulwer-Lytton's movements for that period. But I must admit that I suspect you are right. D'Onston could say, "The sky is blue and the sun bright orange or yellow!", and suddenly I'd have profound doubts about the truth of his statements.

Best wishes,

Jeff

[Howard Brown]

Dear J.B.

I'm well,Nina is well, and I'm sorry I haven't made an effort to ask how you've been yourself,old friend. I hope all is well for you.

Let me try to answer your questions...because I think this can be handled fairly easily.

You mentioned:

"Actually the paucity of detail ruins what otherwise is a good point. We don't know the date of the so-called meeting (at least yours truly doesn't). Did Harris ever locate it? The reason I ask is that it is conceivable (if it was a "chance meeting" that D'Onston and the young Robert Bulwer-Lytton met in a railway car or station or in a restaurant or hotel or in a store or salon, and Robert could have been on a small vacation or doing some diplomatic business in Paris that was connected to the other cities he was in. We would need to know 1) the date of this meeting, and 2) what was the exact calender of Robert Bulwer-Lytton's movements for that period. But I must admit that I suspect you are right. D'Onston could say, "The sky is blue and the sun bright orange or yellow!", and suddenly I'd have profound doubts about the truth of his statements."

The facts are that Mr. Harris repeated what D'Onston states in the Borderland ( 1896) article, but with a twist.

A while back,I made an allegation that Mr. Harris flipped the date that D'Onston is alleged to have met Lytton Sr....and of which liasing there is up to now no proof of THAT ever happening. According to D'Onston, he met Lytton Jr. in 1859 and not surprisingly,since D'Onston was pretty good at prevarication... also in 1863. I feel that Mr. Harris took the date that was easier to squeeze this "meeting" into because it would make 'sense" if D'Onston was telling the truth about ever meeting either Lytton. Mr. Harris was among the first to know that D'Onston was working in 1863...so this may after all be the reason for selecting the 1859 date. We do know Stephenson was pushing pencils at the Customs House in the Spring of 1863 and yet, as previously mentioned, he had claimed to have already met Lytton Jr. BEFORE the Garibaldi Campaign which took place in 1860.

One problem,J.B., is that not only is there is no proof that D'Onston ever met either Lytton but more importantly,there is no proof he was ever on the continent to have met Lytton Jr. where he claimed he touched base with him to set up the now legendary initiation into the Hermetic Lodge of Alexandria with old man Lytton....

D'Onston had already been a devotee of Lytton Sr....and we know he plagiarized his 1836 novel, The Last Days Of Pompeii", ....and the odds of his "good fortune" of being in the right place in the right time to have stumbled upon Lytton Jr. in Paris...at a time he, D'Onston, was preparing for the Garibaldi campaign...are astronomical. These odds depend on at least three conditions:

1. D'Onston being to Paris...in 1859, specifically.
2. Lytton Jr. being in Paris specifically in 1859 .....
3. It ever being demonstrable that both above conditions occurred.

Harris didn't have any source material other than the claims D'onston made and from this sourceless claim along with other "facts' made a suspect out of D'Onston that is somewhat different from the Marsh-suspect or the Cremers-suspect.

So..in summation: D'Onston claims to have met Lytton Jr. in 1859, but there's no proof he was anywhere other than preparing for the Garibaldi Campaign in Hull and then in London ( living with Rev.Prest) and NONE that he was ever in Europe prior to 1861....or ever.

D'Onston also claimed to have met Lytton in 1863 after the release of A Strange Story when he, D'Onston, was 22...in the first paragraph of Borderland. He was 22 in April ( Your birthday by the way...the 20th of the month ) and only 5 days after this 22nd birthday, he was in Hull at Customs House...

I doubt very seriously that D'Onston was ever in Paris, J.B...and on top of that, that Lytton's calendar will ever show a date where it coincided with the jetsetting pencilpusher's.

It was all wishful thinking to promote this guy as a suspect,J.B.

Take care

HB

[Chris]

According to D'Onston, he met Lytton Jr. in 1859 and not surprisingly,since D'Onston was pretty good at prevarication... also in 1863.

We went through this ad nauseam a year or two ago. (Unfortunately, those discussions seem not to have survived the last server crash.)

If you insist on bringing it up yet again, is it too much to ask that you state, clearly and concisely, precisely what is the evidence for your claim that "he claims to have met Bulwer Lyttons' [sic] son in Paris in 1859"? You stated this in the first post in this thread, without even indicating to the reader that the information given by Stephenson about the date of the meeting was contradictory.

[Howard Brown]

Gee golly and gosh,old buddy...sorry if I gave you nausea before...so here you go:

Fact: I was the one who argued against D'Onston being in contact with Lytton in 1859. Your argument was why I said Harris used the 1863 date when it could have been a case of Harris merely using the 1859 date because of comments D'Onston made...such as these found in Borderland:

SUBÉ THE OBEEYAH WOMAN.

I remember more than thirty years ago meeting an Obeeyah woman some hundreds of miles up the Cameroons river, and who had her residence in the caverns at the feet of the Cameroons mountains.

No way,Jose. Stephenson was in Hull "more than thirty years ago" since this was written in 1896. 1896-30= 1866,Chris.

Or this whopper,buddy............

IV.-IN ITALY. THE EVIL EYE.

When engaged in the Italian War of Independence in 1860, I visited a place called La Cava, a few miles from Salerno.

THE GREEN OINTMENT.

At last I startled her. I said, " Show me the green ointment !" She did not go pale-her mahogany face could not accomplish that feat-but she trembled violently, and clasping her hands together in supplication, said, " No ! Signor, no ! " However, I soon made her produce it, in a little ancient gallipot about the size of a walnut. I asked her if she made it herself, or who supplied her with it. She acknowledged to the manufacture, and then I quietly told her what she made it from, and how she prepared it. Of course, I simply knew all this from the books of "black magic" I had studied under Lytton.

For the above to be true, Stephenson would have had to have studied under Lytton before 1860....which, of course, he didn't.

The facts are that D'Onston alludes to 1859 in his writing in these two and possibly one other source that slips my mind at the moment.

Harris also declared he studied under Lytton prior to 1860...and that is found on page 93 of The True Face of Jack The Ripper.

D'Onston, as you well know...claimed the other liason date in Borderland as well. He was such a kibbitzer, he snuck two dates ( 1863 and 1859,by inference) in the same article.



Harris states on page 95...."and there in Africa he killed his first woman, a fact that he put into print 28 years later." The first that the nonsense story of the witchdoctor appeared was,once more in Borderland...in 1896.

Melvin really went off the hook with this one. For this to have been "put into print 28 years later" means.....drumroll: 1868. .....1868 + 28= 1896,Chris.

D'Onston worked until the last day of 1868 sharpening pencils..........

Later....

[Howard Brown]

Too late to go back and edit, but here goes...the following is from the previous post:

SUBÉ THE OBEEYAH WOMAN.

I remember more than thirty years ago meeting an Obeeyah woman some hundreds of miles up the Cameroons river, and who had her residence in the caverns at the feet of the Cameroons mountains.

No way,Jose. Stephenson was in Hull "more than thirty years ago" since this was written in 1896. 1896-30= 1866,Chris.

In the same article, Stephenson mentions he had a talisman he recieved from Lytton to take care of this Sube the Obeeyah woman.

Stephenson could mean 37 years ago when he says "more than 30 years ago" or he could mean 33 years ago. The former infers 1859 and the latter 1863.

[Mayerling]

Hi again Howard,

It's okay old buddy. In the last three years I was sort of knocked silly by serious illness in 2007, which put me into the hospital on three occasions.
I got into a literary funk affecting my writing (the article about the Bravo Case), which I am only now being able to slowly get out of (I've been writing a little on Wikipedia). I haven't been as active on this board as formally, except on one thread about U.F.O.s.

I had forgotten how much like a mindfield D'Onston and Harris are. Gee, you have your work cut out for you!

Oddly enough I have been reading a great deal about Napoleon III and Second Empire, which includes his involvement with the unification of Italy.
Napoleon III was opposed to Garibaldi (this sounds like a contradiction, I know, but it actually makes sense). Much of Napoleon's support in the French countryside was from a heavily Roman Catholic peasantry, and they did not want the Papal State's territories touched by Cavour and Victor Emmanuel's plans. Originally Cavour was willing to go along with this, but Garibaldi spoiled it.

I bring this up because I noticed all that business that D'Onston claimed he was involved in concerning Garibaldi and the unification in 1859. It would have had to be in Hull or in England (or anywhere outside France) because Napoleon III's secret police would have been active (with the approval of Cavour) to grab agents of Garibaldi in Paris or any French city or town. So that's another reason to question D'Onston and young Robert Bulwer meeting in France in 1859.

Of course, as I suspect, if D'Onston was lying about being involved with Garibaldi and his Risorgimiento Red Shirts, he could in Paris without problems from the French police about this matter.

By the way, I think in 1859 Garibaldi was living in exile in the U.S....on Staten Island of all places.

I'll try to get more involved again.

Best wishes,

Jeff

[Chris]

Howard Brown

Oh dear. If that's the nearest you can get to "clear and concise" it explains much about the confusion over these issues.

Suffice it to say, you're unable to come up with a single reference by Stephenson to the year 1859. As you know very well, he gave no date for the alleged meeting with Lytton, only several contradictory indications of date. And this has been pointed out to you many times.

[Howard Brown]

Jeff:

Let me handle the last response by the guy with nothing better to do and I'll get back to you.

Chris Phillips:

D'Onston mentions that he met Lytton when he was 22 and its in Borderland. That means he is claiming 1863. This is clear to anyone who is not anally retentive....and to anyone who is not trying to get the pro-D'Onston cadre off the hook. The only confusion is why such nagging little issues keep surfacing from you about a guy who isn't even a suspect anymore. Unless,of course, you would care to defend that concept.

Don't try to pass off the date confusion on to me. He either met him in one of these two years or he didn't....according to the references he makes in HIS writing, not your buddy Melvin's( no sic this time).

D'Onston also mentions the utilization of "magic books" he used while studying under Lytton in the story I mentioned. Considering the year and the lie that Stephenson told, this infers before 1860.

D'Onston either met him prior to 1860 as he claims or in 1863 as he likewise claimed...or he didn't at all. There are no two ways about it.

Au revoir, mon cheri...


JB:

That sounds very interesting about this Staten Island & Garibaldi possibility. The jury is still out on this one... Even here at home, Nina feels that D'Onston may have actually served the Top Wop, this Garibaldi, in 1859-1860 while I have my doubts.

Fill me in whenever possible here or on the Forums,JB...and I am very sorry to hear about the problems in 2007. Hopefully they won't return.

[Chris]

Howard Brown

As I said - and as has been discussed at length before - Stephenson doesn't give a date for the alleged meeting. The dates come from people such as you, trying to interpret the contradictory implications he gives about when it took place.

So - one implication is that it took place before an incident that he says took place in Italy some time in 1860. Of course, that doesn't imply "in 1859". If you think about it, it doesn't even imply "before 1860".

Nor, of course, does he mention the date 1863. He says only that he was "about 22" at the time of the meeting, which can naturally imply only an approximate date.

But as you've already moved on to personal abuse, I'm not inclined to waste time going through all this again. I can only wonder what has caused you to change your opinion of me, some time during the last six months, from "a very grounded and capable Ripperologist" to "the guy with nothing better to do". But in any case, I do have something better to do than this.

[Howard Brown]

Chris Phillips:

In your initial post on this thread...you commented:

"If you insist on bringing it up yet again, is it too much to ask that you state, clearly and concisely, precisely what is the evidence for your claim that "he claims to have met Bulwer Lyttons' [sic] son in Paris in 1859"?

By the tone of this initial post, I got the impression that you were getting feisty with me when all I was doing was providing some facts that Paul & Robert had originally found. Based on that impression, I gave back what I thought I was recieving. The little "sic' also irked me. No need on your part to play school teacher with me.

I'll say this for the absolute last time since I have a lot more important things to do than argue about the dead horse D'Onston in regard to his "possible" liasing with Lytton Sr. or Jr....and your insistence that I am somewhat obligated to provide "evidence" for the date that D'Onston met or could have met or didn't meet Lytton. I have no such obligation.

The Wikipedia article demonstrates that Lytton Jr. was in Copenhagen during the period of time D'Onston CLAIMED to have been a medical student, which is sometime prior to his alleged service to Garibaldi in 1860.

I cannot nor can anyone else give a specific day in a specific month in a specific year for this alleged liason with Lytton Jr. I do not have to. All I have to do is provide the facts of the matter and those facts are that Lytton Jr. was in Copenhagen in 1859....and that D'Onston was in Hull during the other year that he mentions. We have no proof that D'Onston ever went to Europe,period.

Without D'Onston's travels in Europe and liasing with Lytton in Paris...we have no rendezvous with Lytton Sr. to learn hocus pocus. THIS is the basis of the whole "D'Onston learned black magic and got initiated into the world of hocus pocus" in the first place.

I CAN show you, as Harris has shown prior to my work on D'Onston, that there are 2 years at least in which this alleged liason occurred. According to Harris and the other author who wrote on this man, he met Lytton Jr. in 1859 and there are no ifs, ands or buts about that....to them. If you have questions about why one of them selected the year 1859, be my guest and ask him. I have said time and time again that there is no proof he ever met Lytton and with the Wikipedia article as a basis,shown that the 1859 claim is a virtual impossiblity...as we know the 1863 claim is. D'Onston was prevaricating about this "meeting" with his idol...a man he plagiarized.

I scoured the O'Donnell and found...after hour upon hour of analyzing that tome...the reference in the first paragraph of the Borderland article... to the numerical reference to his age...22..when Stephenson claimed to have liased with Lytton Sr. If you or someone else wants to debate this issue, thats fine with me...because to me it is very clear that D'Onston is stating that he met Lytton in 1863. I personally do not care one bit whether you or anyone else found a magazine article which featured the Lytton novel, A Strange Story,in serial form.... in 1861...1864...or 1862 because Stephenson says he met him after the release of the Lytton work in the following Spring...which was 1863...in the original version of the 1896 Borderland article. That is the bottom line to me. If you dispute it...be my guest.

Stephenson also claimed,as I have provided, the reference to using the magic books he learned when he had studied under Lytton prior to 1860 in that one segment of the Borderland article. Could this mean "1857" ? "1856" If so, he would have been a medical student under whom? James Allan? Allan was in Manchester by the year 1849...when D'Onston was EIGHT years old....not Giessen or Munich....and Allan did not return to the continent,eventually going to Wesleyan University. Scratch the European excursion altogether. Its hogwash. Remember...that D'Onston stated that he was a student of Allan and studying under him and then met Lytton Jr. in Paris. According to the facts I brought up before and these facts on this thread...this,like so much else of the D'Onston story is a LIE.

I do not know how much more clear I can be on this,Chris...because he is stating he had already met Lytton BEFORE 1860 in the Borderland article... The Italian witch nonsense, witch...oops, which came to pass as a result of his tenure under Garibaldi in the hills of Italy. That by inference does not just suggest...it states that he met him before 1860.

It is therefore incumbent on someone...anyone... who disputes this presentation to provide a year which is in synch with the facts within the D'Onston story and provide a sound reason to dispute what D'Onston says in relation to the two different time frames/years he claimed to have met Lytton. In essence that individual would have to counter the original lie with a theoretically plausible scenario where D'Onston got his facts mixed up.

There is really no need to do so. If D'Onston, by his own words, claims that he either met Lytton Jr. in Paris after or while being a student of Allan's...thats a lie. Allan,again,was in Manchester.

If he claims he met him in 1863, then thats a lie too. D'Onston's first three years at Customs House were impeccable. I have those records.

Now...on to me and you.

Chris, I greatly admire the dedicated work that you do as I do so many others in the community. You know that. I have no axe to grind with you as a person, but only how you approach my methodology in trying to determine facts about D'Onston and disseminating them to the community. D'Onston was a former suspect and all this hoopla over a year he could,would,should or didn't meet this guy or that guy does not affect his non-suspect status. The Currie Ward protocol did that.

If I could find a year that might be believable,I would not hesitate one second in posting that information. If I could find an obscure fact which showed that D'Onston DID liase with either Lytton, I would race for the boards to provide it. They would only show, in the long run, that an innocent man,albeit a major league prevaricator, might have learned hocus pocus or studied under Allan or went to Africa or killed some witchdoctor.

We, meaning Mike and myself and others of the old Gang O' Four, have done a lot to provide the community with sourceable facts and not the nonsense that Harris and the other guy posited in regard to D'Onston.

Lets shake hands and get involved in some way in regard to D'Onston. I am all for putting this disagreeability behind us.

Ok?

[Chris]

Howard Brown

I really don't have time to get into another of these never-ending arguments, so I am going to be brief:

(1) Like anyone else, of course you have an obligation to justify statements you make on these boards, which are presented as statements of fact. Particularly when you have previously accused Melvin Harris of perpetrating a "hoax" by making precisely the same statement.
(2) No matter how many times I correct you on the facts it doesn't seem to penetrate, so I'm probably wasting my time, but:
(i) Stephenson didn't say he was "22" at the time of the meeting, he said he was "about 22";
(ii) The fact that "A Strange Story" was first published in 1861, not 1862, would naturally date the alleged meeting in the following Spring to 1862, not 1863!
(3) The Wikipedia article doesn't say he was in Copenhagen in 1859 - it says he went to Copenhagen in 1863 - it says "In 1858 he was transferred to St Petersburg, Constantinople and Vienna". If you click through to the source, you'll see even that's not quite right, because according to the obituary he was transferred to St Petersburgh in Spring 1858, to Constantinople two months later and "thence " to Vienna. Maybe he was in Constantinople in 1859, maybe in Vienna. Though why any of this should make it impossible for him to visit Paris - even if Stephenson had mentioned that year - I'm not sure.

Finally, kindly note that all I am interested in is trying to get the facts straight. Not in "trying to get the pro-D'Onston cadre off the hook" or of any of the other things you accuse me of. If people don't treat the facts with respect then all these discussions are a complete waste of time.

[Howard Brown]

Chris Phillips

Nor do I have time to engage in a debate over obligation.

Point by point:

1.(1) Like anyone else, of course you have an obligation to justify statements you make on these boards, which are presented as statements of fact. Particularly when you have previously accused Melvin Harris of perpetrating a "hoax" by making precisely the same statement.

Of course I have an obligation to provide a source for what I claim. I was not trying to avoid this responsibility. What I stressed was that I cannot prove that D'Onston didn't meet Lytton because I do not have to prove he couldn't have met him. It remains incumbent to those who say he could have met him to provide evidence that RDS DID go to Paris...DID meet Lytton Jr.... or DID get initiated by Old Man Lytton. They can't....you being one of them.

I made a committment to a mutual friend that the "H" word wouldn't be bandied around and I intend to keep it. Of course,I have no doubt that facts were,shall we say, "rearranged for entertainment's sake' by Harris...and the Currie Ward omitted for one reason or the other when Melvin reproduced the October 16th letter by RDS to the City Police...and omitted the location from within the Hospital. In fact, these are the ONLY words that were omitted from ANY of Stephenson's writings when Harris reproduced them in his books. If you don't believe me....scour the books like I did.

Its funny that you never took him to task when he went about hammering away at the Maybrick Diary being a hoax...when he never could produce the evidence that it was , only making remarks as to ink and tests and three books required and all that badinage. Partisanship,Chris?

2) No matter how many times I correct you on the facts it doesn't seem to penetrate, so I'm probably wasting my time, but:

Once more...this annoying tone to your posts....and here I offered to be a nice guy and kiss and make up..

Let me correct YOU,pardner:

Here are 4 URL's that state clearly that the book "A Strange Story" was published in 1862. I can provide more.

http://www.mith.demon.co.uk/Bulwer.htm
1862

http://www.answers.com/topic/bulwer-...rd-george-earl
1862

In 1862 Bulwer-Lytton increased his stature by his occult novel entitled A Strange Story. Toward the end of the decade he began to work on another story, Kenelm Chillingly, but his health was beginning to fail, and he died on May 23, 1873, at Torquay.

http://www.adilegian.com/bulwerjourn.htm
1862

http://knowledgerush.com/kr/biograph...Bulwer-Lytton/ 1862

Now...if you have an issue with these people, why don't you contact them and correct their mutual mistake?

And as promised....if I could find one publisher who released the book in a year other than 1862:

http://manybooks.net/titles/bulwerlyetext05b128w10.html
1885

Its unusual that you didn't find the 4 links I found so easily...and have had them for a while.

(i) Stephenson didn't say he was "22" at the time of the meeting, he said he was "about 22";

Okay Chris....if Lytton's book had been released in the Winter of 1861...and Stephenson stated in the Borderland article that he met Lytton fils in the Spring following the book's release and he was "about 21"...I would accept what you claim....that he was "ballparking" his age.

He didn't. The book was released, according to the links I have...and that you have yet to counter with links that state otherwise and that it was released in 1861 so far...in 1862...and the sequence of events:...book release...Spring of 1863...aged 22....all match. Your scenario, unless the links I provided and you have only countered to date....is wrong. You demand obligation from me...and now I kindly request it from you: Where are your links for the 1861 release of the book?



ii) The fact that "A Strange Story" was first published in 1861, not 1862, would naturally date the alleged meeting in the following Spring to 1862, not 1863!

See above...


Your scenario is based on speculation....mine on the words of a natural born prevaricator when need be: Stephenson.

Your scenario requires not accepting what D'onston claimed in Borderland...and accepting that the book release as well D'Onston being in error about his own age ( Who the hell says..."about 22" when they are perfectly capable of knowing their own age...and unless they are correct on that point) can be proven.

Back to you because I am sure you and I aren't finished.

[Chris]

Howard Brown

Just try to get this into your head - I do not "claim" anything, I do not "say he could have met him", and I am not putting forward any "scenario". I am simply correcting your egregious misstatements of fact. And I notice you haven't the elementary honesty to correct your muddle over Copenhagen/Constantinople and the Wikipedia entry that misinterpreted the New York Times obituary!

You cannot seriously doubt that "A Strange Story" was first published, in serial form, in 1861 - not 1862. I presented the evidence for this in the previous discussion, and you did not contest it - rather, you simply tried to ignore it. In any case, you can verify it yourself in a few seconds with a Google search. Try putting "Strange Story" and 1861 into the search box, and clicking the first few links.

Now, unless you can present any evidence that anything I have said is factually incorrect ("4 URL's that state clearly ...", indeed!), I don't propose to waste any more time on this, or on you.

[Howard Brown]

What a smarmy response,Chris !! I'm nonplussed,old pal!!!

Explain away the 4 links.

In 1862 Bulwer-Lytton increased his stature by his occult novel entitled A Strange Story. Toward the end of the decade he began to work on another story, Kenelm Chillingly, but his health was beginning to fail, and he died on May 23, 1873, at Torquay.

What does that say,Mr.Phillips?

I told you before I that I K-N-O-W that the goddamned thing was in serial form in 1861. Do you deny that the book....b-o-o-k came out in 1862 ?