Tweet
Interesting find. I'm not so sure it is a fictional work. The caption below it looks like a library's notation for a cataloged item of what is called "empherma" (paper publications not expexcted to last a long time). This could be the title page of a pamphlet or broadside collecting articles about the Ripper, as well as the text of "Another letter from the Ripper" (there were hundreds of them, and some were mentioned in the press).
"(s.n.)" is a cataloger's abbreviaton for the Latin phrase "sin nominus" (without name) which was once used to indicate that the book or article lacks an author or publisher name. Thankfully, we no longer use obscure abbreviations for foreign phrases!
The "[November 1888]" is an educated guess at the date of the material, while the brackets indicate this information doesn't actually appear on the item being described.
I would venture a guess that this is a title page from a pamphlet about the Ripper crimes, with the rest of the item missing. It is in either a library's or bookseller's catalog, under the subject category "Crime", and was titled by the first line of text. The portraits were probably reproduced from other illustrations in newspapers. A historical curiosity, but of dubious value to the researcher.
"(s.n.)" is a cataloger's abbreviaton for the Latin phrase "sin nominus" (without name) which was once used to indicate that the book or article lacks an author or publisher name. Thankfully, we no longer use obscure abbreviations for foreign phrases!
The "[November 1888]" is an educated guess at the date of the material, while the brackets indicate this information doesn't actually appear on the item being described.
I would venture a guess that this is a title page from a pamphlet about the Ripper crimes, with the rest of the item missing. It is in either a library's or bookseller's catalog, under the subject category "Crime", and was titled by the first line of text. The portraits were probably reproduced from other illustrations in newspapers. A historical curiosity, but of dubious value to the researcher.
Comment