Tweet
A question was raised on one of the other threads. What are the origins of the ‘canonical five,’ and when did this concept first became prominent, or, at least, when did it first become known?
There are far more qualified people that can address this, but I’ll give it a shot. We can agree, I think, that Melville Macnaghten was the prime mover of this idea, but his memorandum did not become widely known until after the late 1950s.
Jon Menges mentions Frederick Wensley, who in 1931, stated in his autobiography that there were “officially five” victims. I believe Wensley’s full statement was “officially, only five (with a possible sixth) murder were attributed to Jack the Ripper.” So, this was the official view—the canonical five-- with a slight dash of wriggling room tossed in. Wensley, I think it is safe to say, is relying on Macnaghten’s unpublished memo, but he might also be tipping his hat to Swanson (?)
Before Wensley, we had Macnaghten’s own Days of My Years (1913) where he briefly mentions the murders of Emma Smith and Martha Tabram, but states that the first “real” murder in the series was that of Polly Nichols. The last was Mary Kelly, which again gives us the canonical five.
So, the canonical five is “on the books” by 1913. That said, it appears that Macnaghten’s opinion, with very few exceptions, was entirely ignored.
Leonard Matters (1929) includes Turner/Tabram as a Ripper victim, as does Edwin Woodhall (1937). William Stewart (1939) dismisses Liz Stride’s murder as attributable to someone else. Walter Dew, in “I Caught Crippen” (1938) also seems to accept Tabram as a Ripper victim and even leans towards including Emma Smith.
As for ‘general’ books about the history of Scotland Yard, many of these also include the earlier victims. “Critical Years at Scotland Yard,” by Belton Cobb (1956) includes a chapter on the Whitechapel Murders, beginning with the murder of ‘Martha Turner.’ Belton claims that Annie Chapman was the ‘third in the series.’ Kelly, once again, is the last.
Between the wars the case was all but forgotten by the publishing world, and this would not change until the 1960s and 70s. An exception is “The Harlot Killer,” edited by Allan Barnard (1953) which is a weird mishmash of 13 chapters about Jack the Ripper by various authors, some fiction, some non-fiction. In his introduction, Barnard states that both Emma Smith and Martha Tabram were Ripper victims, as does the first author, Alan Hynd. A later chapter is nothing more than excerpts taken from The Times’ coverage of the various inquests in 1888, and this, too, accepts Smith and Tabram as part of the ‘series.’ Only a chapter near the end, by Edmund Pearson, argues in favor of the ‘canonical five,’ which he attributes to “more conservative writers”--evidently a reference to Macnaghten and those aware of him.
So, all in all, it appears that during most of the 20th Century, Martha Tabram and often Emma Smith were generally accepted as ‘Ripper’ victims, and this didn’t change until the wide dissemination of the Macnaghten memo after Farson got hold of the Aberconway version. As far as I can tell, very few if any commentators considered Mylett or Mackenzie or Coles as genuine ‘Ripper’ victims, even before Macanghten’s opinions became known.
During the 1960s the so-called ‘canon’ solidified into a mythical status, and “The Five” was embraced far and wide thereafter, up to, and including, the author Hallie Rubenhold.
There are far more qualified people that can address this, but I’ll give it a shot. We can agree, I think, that Melville Macnaghten was the prime mover of this idea, but his memorandum did not become widely known until after the late 1950s.
Jon Menges mentions Frederick Wensley, who in 1931, stated in his autobiography that there were “officially five” victims. I believe Wensley’s full statement was “officially, only five (with a possible sixth) murder were attributed to Jack the Ripper.” So, this was the official view—the canonical five-- with a slight dash of wriggling room tossed in. Wensley, I think it is safe to say, is relying on Macnaghten’s unpublished memo, but he might also be tipping his hat to Swanson (?)
Before Wensley, we had Macnaghten’s own Days of My Years (1913) where he briefly mentions the murders of Emma Smith and Martha Tabram, but states that the first “real” murder in the series was that of Polly Nichols. The last was Mary Kelly, which again gives us the canonical five.
So, the canonical five is “on the books” by 1913. That said, it appears that Macnaghten’s opinion, with very few exceptions, was entirely ignored.
Leonard Matters (1929) includes Turner/Tabram as a Ripper victim, as does Edwin Woodhall (1937). William Stewart (1939) dismisses Liz Stride’s murder as attributable to someone else. Walter Dew, in “I Caught Crippen” (1938) also seems to accept Tabram as a Ripper victim and even leans towards including Emma Smith.
As for ‘general’ books about the history of Scotland Yard, many of these also include the earlier victims. “Critical Years at Scotland Yard,” by Belton Cobb (1956) includes a chapter on the Whitechapel Murders, beginning with the murder of ‘Martha Turner.’ Belton claims that Annie Chapman was the ‘third in the series.’ Kelly, once again, is the last.
Between the wars the case was all but forgotten by the publishing world, and this would not change until the 1960s and 70s. An exception is “The Harlot Killer,” edited by Allan Barnard (1953) which is a weird mishmash of 13 chapters about Jack the Ripper by various authors, some fiction, some non-fiction. In his introduction, Barnard states that both Emma Smith and Martha Tabram were Ripper victims, as does the first author, Alan Hynd. A later chapter is nothing more than excerpts taken from The Times’ coverage of the various inquests in 1888, and this, too, accepts Smith and Tabram as part of the ‘series.’ Only a chapter near the end, by Edmund Pearson, argues in favor of the ‘canonical five,’ which he attributes to “more conservative writers”--evidently a reference to Macnaghten and those aware of him.
So, all in all, it appears that during most of the 20th Century, Martha Tabram and often Emma Smith were generally accepted as ‘Ripper’ victims, and this didn’t change until the wide dissemination of the Macnaghten memo after Farson got hold of the Aberconway version. As far as I can tell, very few if any commentators considered Mylett or Mackenzie or Coles as genuine ‘Ripper’ victims, even before Macanghten’s opinions became known.
During the 1960s the so-called ‘canon’ solidified into a mythical status, and “The Five” was embraced far and wide thereafter, up to, and including, the author Hallie Rubenhold.
Comment